REPORT No. 112/12 CASE 12,828 MERITS MARCEL GRANIER ET AL. VENEZUELA November 9, 2012 I. SUMMARY 1. On March 1, 2007, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition lodged by Carlos Ayala Corao and Pedro Nikken (hereinafter “the petitioners”) in which they alleged that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “the State” or “the Venezuelan State”) was responsible for violating the human rights of Mr. Marcel Granier and 22 other shareholders, executives and/or journalists of Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV) (hereinafter “the alleged victims”). After conducting a preliminary analysis, on October 16, 2007 the Commission informed the petitioners that it would not be possible to process the petition, given that it was not possible to determine whether domestic remedies had been exhausted. On October 18, 2010, the petitioners once again submitted a petition reiterating and updating the information presented, and introducing new allegations. 2. According to the petitioners, the State’s decision not to renew RCTV’s concession to operate as a television station was calculated to silence the media outlet in retaliation for broadcasting news and opinions critical of the government. They also point out that through a court proceeding to which the alleged victims were not party, the State decided to confiscate RCTV’s broadcasting equipment, which it did without giving the alleged victims a court hearing or due process and without paying them compensation. The petitioners contend that this, combined with the State’s failure to respond to the remedies filed by the alleged victims, constitutes a violation of the rights to a fair trial, to freedom of thought and expression, to private property, to equality and non-discrimination, and to judicial protection, recognized in articles 8, 13, 21, 24 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”), all in conjunction with the general obligations enshrined in articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. The petitioners request, as a result, a number of reparations measures. 3. The State argues that the petition should be declared inadmissible because domestic jurisdictional remedies have not been exhausted, as the contentious administrative remedy of nullification against the ruling to not renew RCTV's license is still pending. With regard to the merits, it denies the violations alleged by the petitioners. The State argues that the nonrenewal simply corresponds to the legal expiration of a concession that the State decided not to renew under its discretionary authority to administer public property like the broadcast spectrum. The State alleges that RCTV was involved in the coup d'état in April 2002 and that it violated domestic broadcasting law, though that law "was not applied." It indicates that the nonrenewal of RCTV's concession was not carried out to silence the media outlet but for the reasons set forth in communication 0424 of the People's Power Ministry on Telecommunications and Information. Specifically, it indicates that this Ministry decided to set aside the signal being used by RCTV to fulfill the constitutional requirement to guarantee public television services with the purpose of allowing universal access to information pursuant to the National Telecommunications, Information Technology and Postal Services Plan. The State argues that the renewal of the concessions of several other free-to-air television broadcasters at the same time that the RCTV concession was not renewed allows it to be established that there was no violation of the right to equality before the law. Additionally, it argues that the seizure of RCTV property guarantees collective interests and the general interest of the Venezuelan population, and that it is not true that the equipment has been damaged while in State hands. Finally, the State argues that the Supreme Tribunal of Justice has not delayed ruling on the contentious administrative remedy of nullification against the decision not to renew RCTV's license. 4. On July 22, 2011, the IACHR approved Report No. 114/11, declaring the petition admissible with respect to the alleged violations of articles 8 (due process), 13 (freedom of thought and