24 88. Given the fact that there is a connection between the facts contained in the application that the Commission and the representatives have alleged to constitute a violation of said conventional rules, the Court deems it is relevant to jointly analyze these facts and arguments, in the first chapter on the merits of the case (chapter VIII). Specially, in view of the characteristics of the instant case and the following reasons (infra para. 297 to 305) the alleged violations of the right to a fair trial and judicial guarantees, enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, shall be analyzed as part of the State's obligation to investigate possible human rights violations, contained in Article 1(1) of the Convention, as a way of guarantee of other rights that were also allegedly violated. 89. Moreover, the Commission and the representatives alleged that some of the statements made by the President of the Republic, in particular those that refer to the use of the state’s radio spectrum by Globovisión and the concession under which it operates, constituted forms of indirect restriction incompatible with the right to freely seek and impart information, in violation of Article 13(1) and 13(3) of the Convention. Moreover, the Commission alleged that, at least, on six occasions the alleged victims were restricted to access to official sources of information or state premises, which constitute undue restrictions to the right to seek, receive and impart information, in the terms of Article 13 of the American Convention; in turn, the representatives pointed out 16 facts in this sense that they consider to be violations of Articles 13 and 24 the Convention, for being discriminatory treatment. These allegations shall be considered in a second chapter on the merits of the controversy (chapter IX). 90. Lastly, the representatives alleged that 17 facts constituted the violation of the right to property of Mr. Federico Ravell and Guillermo Zuloaga, in the capacity as shareholders of Globovisión, and therefore they alleged the violation of Article 21 of the Convention. This allegation shall be considered in a third chapter on the merits of the controversy (chapter X). VII EVIDENCE 91. Based on the provisions of Article 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as the consistent practice of the Court as to evidence and assessment thereof,36 the Court shall examine and assess the evidence contained in the case file.37 A) DOCUMENTARY, TESTIMONIAL AND EXPERTS‘ OPINION EVIDENCE 36 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 86; Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50; and Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 15. Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 183 and 184; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006, Serie C No. 154, para. 67, 68 and 69; and Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 34. 37 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Serie C No. 37, para. 76; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 20 para. 49; and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 22, para. 31.