8 related to a legal entity,” and that “it reject the […] preliminary objection […] filed […] by the Venezuelan State.” 18. The representatives argued that the objection “has no basis […] because no legal entity is, or claims to be, a procedural subject,” and the presumed victims in this case are “natural persons, fully identified as such, who are employees, journalists, executives and shareholders of RCTV.” Regarding Article 1(2) of the Convention, they indicated that the fact that “it does not recognize rights to legal entities” cannot mean that shareholders, “as natural persons, […] may be deprived of the human rights inherent in their essential dignity.” According to the representatives, “a distinction should be made between the entitlement to and the exercise of human rights, [because, at times,] owing to the law or the circumstances, the human being entitled to the right is in the situation that the exercise of the right must be implemented through the intermediation of a legal entity.” Thus, they indicated that “[w]hen a legal entity is prejudiced by a violation of the Convention, the substantial element is to determine whether the rights of ‘every human being’ are also violated […] rather than, exclusively, interests that merely relate to the corporate entity.” In addition, they indicated that in the case of Cantos v, Argentina, “the [Inter-American] Court did not interpret Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention, but rather the American Convention,” and asked the Court to reject “the request to amend its case law.” A.2. Considerations of the Court 19. Article 1(2) of the Convention establishes that the rights recognized in this instrument correspond to persons; that is, human beings. 6 Thus, in order to decide which situations may be analyzed within the framework of the American Convention, the Court has examined the presumed violation of rights of individuals in their capacity as shareholders,7 and employees,8 in the understanding that the said presumed violations fell within its jurisdiction. Article 1(2) of the American Convention establishes that “[f]or the purposes of this Convention, ‘person’ means every human being.” Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 45. 6 Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, paras. 123, 125, 138 and 156, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No 195 para. 400. 7 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No.72, para. 109, 110, 125 and 130, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011. Series C No. 223, paras. 81 to 84. 8