A/HRC/13/66 76. The Ombudsman failed to fulfil his mandate to protect human rights, refusing to investigate the allegations brought to his office. Even though some regional ombudspersons, and in particular the San Pedro Sula office, did intervene to obtain the release of people arbitrarily deprived of their liberty and to ensure that complaints were filed with the Fiscalía, in most cases the action of the national Ombudsman himself and his office was seen as inefficient, negligent or directly inconsistent with his mandate. VI. Observations and conclusions 77. The coup d’état gave rise to a number of human rights violations, most of which remain unpunished. In addition, it revealed and exacerbated existing structural problems affecting human rights, intensified a difficult and tense political and social climate, and deepened the polarization within most State institutions and society at large. Measures imposed under the state of emergency facilitated the repression of those opposed to the coup and allowed the arbitrary restriction of fundamental rights. 78. Of particular concern was the disrespect for the principle of legality, such as the use of illegal procedures, irregularities in adopting legislation (in some cases without written texts or publication), the lack of competence of the military authorities to exercise law enforcement functions, and the absence of independent judicial control mechanisms. By abiding by the legality principle, by publishing all norms in a timely manner and assuring their application by competent authorities in compliance with the principles of necessity and proportionality, the authorities could have prevented a number of human rights abuses. 79. The derogation of guarantees was incompatible with the international obligations of Honduras. In particular, the State did not respect the legality principle, proportionality in adopting emergency measures, and authorization only for exceptional situations. Considering that only a few cases of violence by demonstrators were registered, the nature of the potential danger does not appear to have been sufficiently serious to call a state of emergency. Actions by the security forces, in particular police officers, were characterized by the disproportionate use of force, torture and ill-treatment, and arbitrary and illegal detentions. The State also failed to notify the United Nations and the OAS, as required by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights. 80. The preparations for the electoral process took place in a context of limitations to and suspension of guarantees such as freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly. 81. The impunity for most human rights violations committed during the crisis increased the vulnerability of victims. The absence of independent, timely and effective judicial investigations left most of those responsible unpunished and the victims without adequate judicial protection and redress. 82. The fragile social situation, challenges in fighting poverty and inequality, and institutional weaknesses were further exposed as a result of the coup. Some governmental measures resulted in additional difficulties for the population in accessing the most basic rights, particularly to health care, education and food. Some institutional programmes associated with these rights collapsed. 83. The lack of independence of control institutions, such as the Fiscalía, the Supreme Court and the Ombudsman, with some notable exceptions, resulted in their unavailability or inability to protect human rights and the rule of law. Re-establishing the credibility and legitimacy of these institutions constitutes a serious challenge. GE.10-11700 17