The Supreme Court held that the clauses prohibiting presidential re-election were in conflict with free speech and thought, and unduly limited political participation and debates. The Court further held that the restriction on human liberty that the prohibition of presidential re-election presents could be accepted in principle if deemed reasonable and socially necessary. However, while the ban had been reasonable and salutary for democracy in earlier periods in Honduran history, this was no longer true since the country had stabilized its democracy through alternation without interruption since 1982.