58 1. The government decisions not to renew RCTV’s concession 187. The petitioners contend that the administrative process that led to the non-renewal of RCTV’s concession was a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. Specifically, they point to a number of due process violations and a lack of impartiality on the part of the authorities who made the decision on the renewal application. 188. The Commission observes in this regard, as has the Court, that while Article 8 of the American Convention is titled “Right to a Fair Trial” its application is not limited to trial rights stricto sensu. In effect, in proceedings to determine administrative sanctions and proceedings that determine rights (such as the use of a broadcasting frequency), the State must respect a series of minimum guarantees 258 that are derived from Article 8. 189. The obligation to respect due process in administrative proceedings fully applies to the procedures through which radio or television concessions are granted since, as previously observed, 259 these decisions have a definitive impact on the right to freedom of expression. Therefore, it is worth repeating that the process of granting and renewing concessions must be carried out in strict accordance 260 with the law, and be a transparent process guided by criteria that are objective, clear, public, non261 discriminatory, and compatible with a democratic society. Finally, before any decision is taken, a party seeking a decision of this kind must have the right to a hearing and to offer evidence; that party also has 262 a right to a reasoned decision delivered within a reasonable period of time, and to judicial review. 190. In the section of this report that concerns freedom of expression and equality before the law, the Commission established that the process that led to the decision not to renew RCTV’s concession did not comply with the procedural obligations that arise from the right to freedom of expression. The procedural obligations that follow from Article 13 are dictated by the administrative due 263 process obligations that are enshrined in Article 8. The Commission therefore considers that the State 258 Cf. I/A Court H.R.. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paragraph 124. See also, IACHR. Access to Justice as a Guarantee of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. A Review of the Standards Adopted by the Inter-American System of Human Rights. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.129. September 7, 2007, paragraphs 98-123. Available at: http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/AccesoDESC07eng/Accesodescindice.eng.htm 259 IACHR, Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Freedom of Expression, Standards for Free and Inclusive Broadcasting. OEA/Ser.L/V/II CIDH/RELE/INF. 3/09. December 30, 2009, paragraphs 60-61. Available at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/docs/publications/Broadcasting%20and%20freedom%20of%20expresion%20FINAL%20PO RTADA.pdf http://www.cidh.org/pdf%20files/Estandares%20para%20radiodifusion%20incluyente.pdf 260 Joint Declaration on Diversity in Broadcasting, December 12, 2007. The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers stated that: “13. One of the essential tasks of regulatory authorities in the broadcasting sector is normally the granting of broadcasting licences. The basic conditions and criteria governing the granting and renewal of broadcasting licences should be clearly defined in the law” and that “14. The regulations governing the broadcasting licensing procedure should be clear and precise and should be applied in an open, transparent and impartial manner. The decisions made by the regulatory authorities in this context should be subject to adequate publicity.” Council of Europe. Committee of Ministers. Appendix to Recommendation Rec(2000)23 of the Committee of Ministers to member states. Rules 13-14. December 20, 2000. Available at: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=Rec(2000)23&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=9999CC&Bac kColorIntranet=FFBB55&BackColorLogged=FFAC75. 261 In this regard, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has recommended that “The regulations governing the broadcasting licensing procedure should be clear and precise and should be applied in an open, transparent and impartial manner. The decisions made by the regulatory authorities in this context should be subject to adequate publicity.” Council of Europe. Committee of Ministers. Appendix to Recommendation Rec(2000)23 of the Committee of Ministers to member states. Rules 13-14. December 20, 2000, paragraph 14. 262 IACHR, Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. . Freedom of Expression, Standards for Free and Inclusive Broadcasting.. OEA/Ser.L/V/II CIDH/RELE/INF. 3/09. December 30, 2009, paragraphs 74-78. Available at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/docs/publications/Broadcasting%20and%20freedom%20of%20expresion%20FINAL%20PO RTADA.pdf . 263 See, also, IACHR. Access to Justice as a Guarantee of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. A Review of the Standards Adopted by the Inter-American System of Human Rights. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.129. September 7, 2007, paragraphs 138-169. Available at: http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/AccesoDESC07eng/Accesodescindice.eng.htm