24 (ii) The impossibility of establishing shareholdings” of the RCTV shareholders a violation owing to the “complex 92. Second, the majority opinion held that it had been proved that the presumed victims were shareholders of legal persons or separate autonomous properties that, in turn, were shareholders or owners of a chain with between one and up to five separate autonomous properties or legal persons leading to the company RCTV C.A.101 On this basis, the majority opinion concluded that this shareholding was “complex,” as a result of a broad company structure of legal persons with separate patrimonies, which ma[de] it even more difficult to be able to establish a direct and clear relationship between the alleged loss of share value and the harm to the patrimony of the legal entity, RCTV.”102 In addition, it considered that, in keeping with the case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, “it was necessary to prove how the harm to the assets owned by “Globovisión” resulted in harm to the rights of the company’s shareholders and, since it did not find that this harm had been proved, it concluded that the shareholders’ right to property had not been violated in that case.”103 93. Regarding this second aspect, it is very important to clarify that it is neither complex nor difficult to establish a direct and evident relationship between the loss of value of the shares and the adverse effects on the property of the RCTV shareholders. This is because, as in the case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela,104 there is no dispute between the parties and it has even been considered a proven fact of the case that Marcel Granier, Peter Bottome, Jaime Nestares, Jean Nestares, Fernando Nestares, Francisco Nestares and Alicia Phelps de Tovar are shareholders and owners of the company RCTV through separate autonomous companies and patrimonies.105 The complexity of the RCTV shareholding structure could, in any case, make it difficult to determine the exact quantum of the deterioration in the value of the company’s shares, but does not constitute an element to conclude that, all in all, there were no adverse effects on the value of the shares owned by Marcel Granier, Peter Bottome, Jaime Nestares, Jean Nestares, Fernando Nestares, Francisco Nestares and Alicia Phelps de Tovar. 94. In the case of Perozo, the Inter-American Court considered that “Alberto Federico Ravell and Guillermo Zuloaga [were] shareholders of the company UNITEL de Venezuela C.A., which [was], in turn, owner of the television station Globovisión and the evidence submitted showed that they were shareholders […], in part, of the television station Globovisión at the time of the alleged facts.”106 In this regard, “[t]he representatives presented the articles of incorporation and the minutes of the shareholders' meetings of UNITEL de Venezuela C.A., Corpomedios GV Inversiones, C.A. and Globovisión Tele, C.A., in order to prove that Mr. Ravell and Mr. Zuloaga were shareholders of Globovisión […]. The documents furnished show that the Corpomedios GV Inversiones C.A. holds 100% of the shares of the company Globovisión Tele C.A. […]. In turn, the company Corpomedios GV holds 60% of the shares in UNITEL de Venezuela C.A., Half of 40% of the remaining shares belong to Sociedad Mercantil Sindicato Avila, C.A. [20%] and the other half to Sociedad Mercantil DNS Inversiones 2000, C.A. [20%]. Meanwhile, at May 15, 2000, UNITEL de Venezuela C.A. was constituted by the shareholders Guillermo Antonio Zuloaga Núñez, who holds 66% of the shares, and Alberto Federico Ravell, who holds 17% of the shares, while Montferrat S.A. holds the remaining 17% of the shares […]. On January 3, 2005, the share capital of UNITEL de Venezuela, C.A. was increased but 101 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 355. 102 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 355. 103 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 356. 104 Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, para. 401. 105 Regarding the percentage of shares of each shareholder, see, para. 65 of the judgment. 106 Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, para. 401.