42 June 12, 2002, for a period of 20 years, with which it would have expired on June 12, 2022. If, on the other hand, Decree No. 1.577 predating the LOTEL were to be strictly applied, the RCTV concession should have been extended by another 20 years as of May 27, 2007, with which it would have expired on 168 May 27, 2027. 135. The petitioners allege, in the alternative, that even were it the case that RCTV had no right to an extension of its concession, the State was obligated to carry out a transparent administrative proceeding subject to the rules of due process in order to determine who would be the next concessionaire. According to their argument, in that proceeding RCTV would have had a right to 169 participate under preferential conditions, or at a minimum under equal conditions. 136. Thus according to the petitioners, RCTV had a right to the extension of its concession, or at a minimum a right to participate in a transparent administrative process intended to determine the next concessionaire. They hold that the actions of the Venezuelan government that failed to recognize this right and led to the expiration of RCTV's concession constituted an abuse of office intended to punish the station for an editorial stance that was critical of the government. As evidence of this, they make reference to the repeated statements of senior Venezuelan government officials (see supra) - including, principally, President Chávez - to the effect that "RCTV should go off the air because its editorial and 170 informational stances were understood by the government to be critical of its administration.” They also allege that the discriminatory nature of the decision is evidenced by the fact that the concession of another television station facing a situation similar to that of RCTV was indeed renewed. 137. For its part, the Venezuelan State argued that “the legal situation at issue in this case is the simple legal expiration of a concession (operating permit) that the State decided not to renew under the Venezuelan State’s discretionary authority to administer public property, that being in this case the 171 broadcast spectrum.” It indicated that “the nonrenewal of RCTV's concession was not carried out to silence the media outlet, this being evidenced by communication 0424, [which] explains clearly and 172 precisely the reasons why RCTV's concession was not renewed.” Although the State argued that RCTV committed “alleged violations of the communication regulations in force in 2002 and 2003,” the State also recognized that the "Broadcasting Regulations" that “provide for the penalty of a temporary or 173 definitive suspension of broadcasting [...] were evidently not applied.” In this sense, the official explanation for the nonrenewal of RCTV's concession offered by the Venezuelan State, both domestically and in the proceeding before the IACHR, is the one contained in the aforementioned Communication No. 174 0424. Specifically, it indicated that this Ministry decided to set aside the signal 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. Through the aforementioned Communication No. 0424, amply transcribed by the State in its observations on the merits, the Venezuelan State informed RCTV that it did not have “an ‘acquired’ right to the automatic renewal of the concession of the use and exploitation of the broadcast 175 spectrum." That communication, which represented the only official explanation that RCTV received of …continuación provisions, shall be given preferential treatment if they are seeking an extension of the concession for another twenty (20) year period.. 168 Annex 1, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, p. 121. 169 Annex 1, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, p. 123. 170 Annex 1, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, p. 45. 171 Annex 72, State Communication received on December 4, 2011. 172 Annex 72, State Communication received on December 4, 2011. 173 Annex 72, State Communication received on December 4, 2011. 174 Annex 72, State Communication received on December 4, 2011. 175 Annex 25, MPPTI, Communication No. 0424 of March 28, 2007, p. 8, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Annex 28.