41 163 owners to change an editorial stance that the government considered unacceptable. With regard to the other shareholders submitted as victims - Jean Nestares, Fernando Nestares, Alicia Phelps de Tovar and Francisco J. Nestares - there is no evidence that they were involved in any activity that could influence RCTV's reporting or management. The case file indicates that they did not participate directly in the Shareholders Meetings but rather through representatives. Therefore, the Commission will not analyze the alleged violation of articles 13 and 24 of the Convention with regard to these four individuals, without prejudice to later consideration of the possible violation of other of their rights. 131. Finally, the alleged victims in this case include 14 professionals who were working in 164 different positions in RCTV, all with significant levels of responsibility. Three of them - Eladio Lárez, Daniela Bergami, and Isabel Valero - were senior officials with the company with general management responsibilities at RCTV in their respective capacities as executive president, general manager, and executive secretary. The others - Edgardo Mosca, Anani Hernández, Inés Bacalao, José Simón Escalona, Odila Rubin, Oswaldo Quintana, Eduardo Sapene, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, Soraya Castellano, María Arriaga and Larissa Patiño - contributed directly to the communicative mission of RCTV, participating in the production of the broadcaster’s programming, or indirectly, by providing essential services such as maintenance of the technical infrastructure, the hiring of journalists, and legal support. 132. The Commission thus considers that shareholders and executives Marcel Granier, Peter Bottome and Jaime Nestares, as well as the 14 RCTV professionals who appear as alleged victims in this case, were exercising their freedom of expression through RCTV’s television channel, a right that was affected when RCTV’s concession was not renewed and the channel went off the air. The Commission will determine below whether those effects are compatible with the American Convention. 3. The circumstances of the non-renewal of the RCTV concession 133. In this case, the petitioners argue that, “The right of free-to-air television concessionaires to continue operating and to obtain the renewal of their concessions is a general principle of telecommunications concessions administrative law" and that "the Venezuelan government neither had nor has discretionary authority to deny, purely and simply, the extension or renewal of a free-to-air 165 television station’s concession." They argue that the government's decision not to renew RCTV’s concession was "an arbitrary act that translates into an indirect and illegitimate measure for restricting the 166 right to expression and communication," in violation of Article 13(3) of the Convention . 134. The petitioners allege that in accordance with Venezuelan law, the RCTV concession should have been extended beyond May 27, 2002. They indicated that because CONATEL did not resolve the request to transform the RCTV concession within the time period established by the LOTEL, there was certain ambiguity regarding which legal regime applied to the renewal of the concession. According to the petitioners, however, the concession should have been extended under either of the two legal regimes possible. They allege that on having applied the provisions of Article 210 of the LOTEL in 167 conjunction with Article 3 of Decree No. 1.577 , the RCTV concession should have been renewed on 163 See for example, Transcription of the program “Aló President” dated January 14, 2003, IACHR, Complaint in Case of Ríos et al v. Venezuela, April 20, 2007, Annex 47, and Inter-American Court, Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment dated January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, paras. 127-128 164 Edgardo Mosca, Anani Hernández, Inés Bacalao, José Simón Escalona, Odila Rubin, Oswaldo Quintana, Eduardo Sapene, Eladio Lárez, Daniela Bergami, Isabel Valero, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, Soraya Castellano, María Arriaga and Larissa Patiño. 165 Annex 1, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, p. 117. 166 Annex 1, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, p. 117. 167 Annex 20, Official Gazette of the Republic of Venezuela No. 33,726, Decree No. 1,577 of May 27, 1987. Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 24: Article 3. At the end of the concession, the parties in possession of the concession who, during the period specified in Article 1, have complied with the provisions of the Telecommunications Law, the Radio Communications Regulations and other legal Continúa…