4 They contend that back in June 2006, agents of the State stepped up the threats against RCTV because of its editorial line. The petitioners assert that on June 14, 2006, during a ceremony at the Ministry of Defense, the President of the Republic, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías (hereinafter “President Chávez”) announced that the operating licenses or concessions granted to television stations “that supported the coup” would have to be reviewed. They recount how that same day, the Minister of Communications and Information (MINCI), William Lara, asserted that the State had the authority not to renew the concessions of those media outlets whose behavior had not changed since April 11 and 12, 2002. According to the petitioners, those statements were echoed by other state officials and by President Chávez on numerous occasions. For example, they point to a December 1, 2006 conversation between the President and journalist Carlos Croes, in which the head of state referred to RCTV as a “channel whose owners have declared themselves to be enemies of the Government”, and said that the State was under no obligation to grant the station a concession. 14. The petitioners explain that starting in December 2006, President Chávez and other highranking officials of the State proceeded to announce the government’s decision not to renew RCTV’s concession. The petitioners submit a series of transcripts of speeches allegedly made by agents of the State between December 28, 2006 and January 19, 2007, in which they stated that RCTV’s concession would not be renewed, describing it as “fascist”, “irresponsible”, “venomous”, “a backer of the coup” and a “lying” broadcasting station. The petitioners point out that the official discourse also accused RCTV of violating a number of broadcasting laws, but nothing was ever found to support those allegations and no penalty was ever ordered for RCTV for serious breaches of the laws regulating television broadcasting. 15. The petitioners also describe how in February 2007, as part of a government campaign, the State published advertisements in the newspapers and placed posters in government offices that said the following: “Give the concession to the truth… RCTV… Don’t renew [the license] for lying. The people have the power! (Bolivarian Government of Venezuela. Ministry of the People’s Power for 3 Communications and Information).” It also published the “Libro Blanco sobre RCTV” [the White Book on RCTV]. They thus maintain that according to existing evidence the real reason why the State refused to renew RCTV’s concession was to punish it for its opposition and to silence the only free-to-air television signal with nationwide coverage that was reporting information and ideas of every sort. 16. The petitioners assert that on January 24, 2007, in response to claims made by State agents, RCTV wrote to CONATEL demanding that the latter acknowledge that RCTV’s concession was good for the period specified in LOTEL and corresponding laws. The petitioners maintain that RCTV also argued that the decision announced by the President of the Republic was discriminatory, disproportionate and retaliatory in nature. The petitioners further assert that in response to that request, on March 29, 2007 the Minister of the People’s Power for Telecommunications and Information Technology (MPPTI) and Director of CONATEL, Jesse Chacón Escamillo, sent RCTV Communication No. 0424. The petitioners contend that the communication in question confirmed the decision not to extend RCTV’s concession, citing the following reasons, among others: i) RCTV was not entitled to preferential treatment for extension of the concession; ii) there were no grounds to transform RCTV’s legal titles, and iii) there was no need to examine the evidence presented by RCTV. The petitioners contend that the decision disregarded the provisions of the Organic Telecommunications Law and, moreover, applied some provisions of Decree No. 1,577 but not others. They maintain that in order to clothe his decision in legal trappings, Minister Escamillo claimed that it was based on the new National Telecommunications Plan. They observe that through Resolution No. 002 of March 28, 2007 –purportedly based on the State’s new telecommunications policies-, Minister Escamillo declared that the application for transformation of RCTV’s legal titles had lapsed because the application no longer served any purpose; with that the corresponding administrative procedure was extinguished. 17. However, the petitioners contend that this plan was never proposed or publicly discussed, and had never before been cited as grounds for declining RCTV’s application for renewal of its concession. They maintain that other frequencies were available that would have served the State’s 3 Communication received from the petitioners on February 18, 2011, p. 29.