3 only physical persons are holders of the rights that it protects. Therefore, these are the individuals identified in paragraphs 66 and 67 of the judgment. 13. I find it evident that the indirect investors were not connected to the information function of RCTV, they merely had a financial interest in resolving the matter, and are absolutely excluded from the case owing to it central issue, which is the alleged violation of the right to freedom of expression in the context of the facts. In this way, I find that it is only the direct employees of RCTV whose rights were violated. 14. The just compensation for the violation of the rights of the physical persons who are victims in this case (Art. 63 of the American Convention) could be provided in the direct and traditional way, by establishing payments to the victims. Not as the judgment decided by restoring the rights not exactly of the victims, but of the legal persons who are unable to lodge petitions before the IACHR. 15. In this way the case ended up involving corporate rights, and the judgment itself refers to it as the Case of “Rádio Caracas Televisión” (RCTV)! 16. Based on the above, I accept the State’s preliminary objection concerning the InterAmerican Court’s lack of jurisdiction to protect legal persons so that it would continue to examine the case excluding the possibility of analyzing the dispute on the restoration of the radioelectric spectrum, the renewal of the concession or the return of RCTV’s assets. III. Freedom of expression and democracy: discrepancy in relation to the restoration of the concession and return of the assets to RCTV 17. I will now analyze the merits of this issue, since the preliminary objection was not admitted by the majority opinion. The judgment, as a whole, was unanimously found to be based on the guiding principles of freedom of expression. However, the analysis of the grounds for the case and the petition with regard to the concession of the radioelectric spectrum, requires making a distinction between freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Once the distance between these two concepts has been clearly delimited, it is clear that the petition finally admitted relates to the right to freedom of the press of RCTV, a legal person that does not meet the requirement of a petitioner. 18. For the reasons that I will now explain, I understand that the investors requested a company right disguised as an individual right to freedom of expression, and this is why the attribution of just compensation should have been determined in favor of the victims and not in favor of a legal person. 3.1 The distinction between freedom of expression and freedom of the press 19. Freedom of expression is a right of every person, under equal conditions and without discrimination of any kind.1 Consequently, as indicated by inter-American jurisprudence, the entitlement to the right to freedom of expression cannot be restricted to a profession or group of individuals, nor applied solely to freedom of the press.2 This means that freedom of expression is an essential element of freedom of the press, although they are not synonymous Special Rapporteurship for freedom of expression (Inter-American Commission for Human Rights). InterAmerican Legal Framework regarding the right to freedom of expression, OEA/Ser.L/V/II CIDH/RELE/INF.2/09, Washington D.C., 2009, para. 11. 1 I/A Court HR., Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 114. 2