87 . which are not linked to the obligatory attendance of the communication firms to all of the state’s bodies’ actions. 345. The representatives stated that in eleven cases there were hindrances on the access to official sources of information or that journalists had to leave the location without covering the news story or the protect, due to individual actions or lack of an adequate action by security officials and they argued interferences in RCTV’s programming either with “presidential nationwide broadcast” or interruptions to the station’s signal. 346. In order to avoid arbitrariness in the exercise of public power, the restrictions in this sense must be previously established in laws subordinate to general interest and be applied with the objective for which they have been established.335 With regard to the accreditations or authorizations for the written media to participate in official events, which imply a possible restriction on the exercise of the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of any nature, it must be proven that their application is legal, it seeks a legitimate objective, and it is necessary and proportional in relation to the objective sought within a democratic society. The requirements for the accreditation must be clear, objective, and reasonable, and their application must be transparent. 336 It corresponds to the State to prove that it has complied with the aforementioned requirements upon establishing requirements to access the information under its control. 337 347. In this case, the representatives have not invoked that the alleged lack of access to the official sources was the result of a rule or regulation issued by the State. Therefore, the facts argued refer to alleged restrictions de facto o hindrances through methods de facto, and therefore proving that the State restricted the access of the alleged victims to certain official sources of information would fall upon the representatives. Once the person who argues the restrictions has proven them, the State shall offer the reasons and circumstances that motivated them and, if necessary, justify the criteria on which they based the decision to grant access to the journalists of some of the media firms and to deny it to others. 348. The Court has stated that, “Article 1(1) of the Convention, which is a rule of a general nature whose content extended to all the stipulations of the treaty, establishes the obligation of the States Parties to respect and guarantee the full and free exercise of the rights and freedoms acknowledged therein ‘without any discrimination’. That is, whichever the origin or the form it takes on, any treatment that may be considered discriminatory regarding the exercise of any of the rights guaranteed in the Convention is per se incompatible with the latter.”338 Article 24 of the Convention “forbids all discriminatory treatment of a legal origin. Therefore, the prohibition of discrimination amply included in Article 1(1) regarding those rights and guarantees established in the Convention extends to the domestic legislation of the State Parties, thus it is possible to conclude that, based on 335 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism. (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra note 71, paras. 40, 45, and 46; Case of Rimel v. Argentina, supra note 71, paras. 63 and 82; Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, paras. 89 and 91; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, supra note 75, para. 85; Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, supra note 71, para. 96; and Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra note 71, paras. 120, 121 and 123. 336 Cf. United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Gauthier v. Canada, Communication No. 633/1995, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/65/D/633/1995 (5 May 1999), para. 13(6). 337 338 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, supra note 335, para. 93. Cf. Proposed Amendments of the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 53. See also Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra note 31, para. 209.