100 independent editorial line critical of the government" which, according to the representatives, constitute a pressure mechanism and an indirect restriction to the freedom of expression and information of all the private media critical of the national government and "of all the Venezuelan people”. Furthermore, they asserted that the continued and repeated threats to close Globovisión constitute “a clear case of misuse of power against Globovisión”. According to the representatives, the motives of such threats regarding the cancelling or non-renewal of the concession of Globovisión have nothing to do with the concessions regime for open television stations or with the interpretation of the applicable administrative law; actually, they are trying to silence a media if it continues working as a television station whose independence and critical expressions disturb the political project of the government. According to the representatives, this is entirely unacceptable in a democratic society and completely incompatible with the system of principles and values enshrined in the Convention, in the OAS Charter and in the Inter-American Democratic Charter. 365. The State, in addition, denied having incurred in a violation of the right to freedom of expression and sustained, inter alia, regarding the cases expressly mentioned in Article 13(3) of the Convention as indirect mechanism of restriction, that "such illegal practices were frequent in Venezuela before the year 1999; however, these practices have been forbidden by the State”. 366. The Commission identified five statements made by the President of the Republic332 and the representatives considered that other two declarations of the President of November 9, 2003 and August 16, 2004, which form part of the factual framework of the complaint, should also be analyzed in this section333. They refer to the concession based on which the media operate and, in some of such declarations, the possibility of cancelling the concession is mentioned. Nevertheless, apart from the statements mentioned in previous chapters regarding the content of such declarations (supra para. 123 to 161), the Court shall decide whether such declarations could have been conceived by the alleged victims as threats and it shall also determine whether or not declarations may be analyzed an indirect means or way to restrict the freedom of expression, under the terms of Article 13(3) of the Convention334. 332 Said statements were made on June 9, 2002 in the Program “Aló Presidente” N°. 107 from the State of Zulia; on December 8, 2002 in the Program “Aló Presidente” N° 130; on January 12, 2003 in the Program “Aló Presidente” N° 135 from the Marine Customs Office, La Guaira; on January 12, 2004 in an interview published in the newspaper El Universal and on February 15, 2004 in the Program “Aló Presidente” N° 182 from Salón Ayacucho of Palacio de Miraflores. 333 Furthermore, the representatives pointed out four declarations of the President given in the year 2006 and ten statements made by other public officials between 2006 and 2007, which are not contained in the application, and according to them, allow explaining the facts mentioned in the application . Moreover, they would prove that "the President of the Republic and other high-ranking officials have never stopped threatening the independent television stations of Venezuela, with the refusal to renew or cancel the concession" Even though, in principle, the facts that explain and clarify the content of the application are admissible this Court considers that the last statements do not explain the facts, inasmuch as they do not make reference to the facts but to new statements, different from and subsequent to the ones of the application. Based on the foregoing, though the Court shall not take into account said statements in its considerations, it notes that the content of some of them is similar to the ones analyzed hereafter. Furthermore, the representatives alleged three facts that they considered are supervening, namely, statements of the President of May 29 and June 2, 2007; and a declaration of the former Telecommunications Minister of April 17, 2007. The facts mentioned by the representatives as supervening facts are not directly related to the facts of the complaint, but they are statements different from and subsequent to the ones contained within the factual framework of the application, though their content may be similar; therefore, the Court shall not analyze them. 334 Hence, on November 9, 2003 the President mentioned, with reference to four private television stations that “when they go past the line drawn by the law, they will automatically be closed, to ensure peace in Venezuela, to ensure calm in Venezuela”. Cf. Transcript (records of evidence, volume VI, appendix 36, pages 1826 to 1827). Moreover, on January 12, 2004, the President of the Republic told to the newspaper El Universal that: “if any