35 involvement in events that could disrupt law and order. Furthermore, subsequent to the lecture and with his knowledge and authorization, his views were published in an article that appeared in the newspaper Tiempo which serves the city of San Pedro Sula. The article came out on Friday, August 28, 2009, in the “OPINIONS” Section, where he is identified as being a Sentencing Judge. Articles 80, 82, 83 and 84 of the Judicial Career Service Act; 1, 3, 4, 7, 9(1), 149, 157, 160, 161, 171, 172 (f), 173 (c), 174, 180 (3), 184, 186, 187 (a), 188, 189, 190, 206, and 214 of the Regulations Governing the Judicial Career Service Act; 3(6) and 108 of the Law on the Organization, Functions and Authorities of the Courts; 53 of the Model Ibero-American Code of Judicial Ethics; 10 and 20 of the Statute of the Ibero-American Judge; and 1(1), 2(d), 8(a) and 9 of 185 the Code of Ethics for Judicial Officials and Employees. 109. On June 30, 2010, Judge Barrios filed an appeal186 and on February 24, 2011 appeared before the Judicial Career Council for a hearing.187 There he pointed that he did not know which members of the Council would take cognizance of his presentation and that his disciplinary case file contained a May 5, 2010 decision signed by the Chief Justice of the SCJ of which he was never notified.188 110. On August 24, 2011, the Judicial Career Council decided to render the Supreme Court’s decision null and void and to “thereby guarantee the petitioner his tenure in the Judicial Branch,” where he had continued to work inasmuch as no replacement had been named. According to the Council, the article published in the newspaper Tiempo “is a personal opinion on the law expressed in the context of a course on Constitutional Law delivered by attorney RAMÓN ENRIQUE BARRIOS.” The Judicial Career Council observed that freedom of thought and expression is a right protected under the Constitution and in international instruments. Judge Barrios’ demand to be reinstated and receive back pay was declared “unfounded” inasmuch as he had remained on the job, since no replacement had ever been named.189 V. THE LAW 111. The present case concerns disciplinary proceedings conducted against the backdrop of the coup d’état in Honduras. Given the “judicial” nature of the alleged victims’ positions, the Commission believes some preliminary observations are in order concerning the principle of judicial independence and its protection under the American Convention. That principle informs the entire analysis that follows regarding the scope of the guarantees to which the alleged victims were entitled. The Commission will then give its decision as to whether the State of Honduras violated the rights established in articles 7, 8, 9, 13, 16, 23 and 25 of the Convention. 185 Annex 25. SCJ. Memorandum No. 1291-SSCJ-2010. June 16, 2010. Attachment to the State’s communication of October 15, 2010. 186 Annex 25. SCJ. Judicial Career Council. Certification, Case No. 3079. August 31, 2010. Pages 1-9. Attachment to the State’s communication of June 25, 2012 received on July 2, 2012. 187 Annex 25. SCJ. Judicial Career Council. Certification, Case No. 3079. Certification of the Hearing held on Case No. 3079. February 24, 2011. Pages 46-62. Attachment to the State’s communication of March 11, 2011 received on July 2, 2012. 188 Annex 25. SCJ. Judicial Career Council. Certification, Case No. 3079. Judicial Career Council of the SCJ. Certification of the Hearing held on Case No. 3079. February 24, 2011. Attachment to the State’s communication of June 25, 2012 received on July 2, 2012. 189 Annex 25. Judicial Career Council of the SCJ. Certification of the Hearing held on Case No. 3079. February 24, 2011. Attachment to the State’s communication of March 11, 2011.