2 expression), 21 (right to private property), 24 (right to equal protection) and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention, in conjunction with articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 5. The Commission concludes that the State is responsible for violating the rights recognized in articles 8, 13, 24 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. The Inter-American Commission finds that the Venezuelan State did not violate the right to private property, protected under Article 21 of the Convention. II. PROCESSING WITH THE IACHR SINCE APPROVAL OF ADMISSIBILITY REPORT No. 114/11 6. Once admissibility report No. 114/11 was approved, the Inter-American Commission classified this as case number 12,828. On July 26, 2011, the Inter-American Commission notified both parties of the admissibility report’s approval, offered its good offices with a view to facilitating a possible friendly settlement of the matter, and set three months as the deadline for the petitioners to submit any additional observations they might have regarding the merits. 7. On August 1, 2011, the petitioners submitted their arguments on the merits. These were forwarded to the State on August 4, 2011, with the request that it present its observations within three months and that it supply a copy of the records of some of the domestic proceedings. 8. In a communication dated November 2, 2011, the Venezuelan State requested a deadline extension of 30 days for the submission of its observations on the merits. On November 7, 2011, the IACHR granted the State an extension of the deadline until December 4, 2011, pursuant to the provisions of Article 37(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR. 9. On November 30, 2011, the Venezuelan State requested an additional extension of three days for the submission of its observations on the merits. On December 1, 2011, the IACHR informed that State that, pursuant to the provisions of Article 37(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, it was not possible to grant the requested extension. 10. On December 4, 2011, the Commission received the observations of the Venezuelan III. THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioners’ position State. 11. The petitioners contend that the alleged victims were shareholders, executives and/or employees of Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), C.A. They assert that RCTV is a media outlet that operated as a free-to-air VHF (very high frequency) television station broadcasting news and airing opinion-based programs nationwide. According to the petitioners, RCTV maintained an independent editorial line that was critical of the government and of the process known as the “Bolivarian Revolution.” They further assert that members of the station’s Board of Directors had a voice –some more than others, depending on their functions- in the decisions taken on how RCTV was operated and its general orientation, and in the discussion of issues related to its editorial line. They also maintain that the shareholders invested part of their capital to establish and capitalize the station –an essential tool for the exercise of freedom of expression in a democratic society- and in so doing chose a medium through which to exercise their right to receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds. 12. The petitioners contend that, under Decree No. 1,577 of May 27, 1987, the State had granted RCTV a concession to operate as a free-to-air television station and to use its frequency on the broadcast spectrum for a period of 20 years –in other words, until May 27, 2007-; at the end of that period, when the time came to extend the concession, the company in possession of the concession would be given preferential treatment. The petitioners report that under the Organic Telecommunications Law [Ley Org��nica de Telecomunicaciones (LOTEL)] of June 12, 2000, the State established a new