4 obligations of the States, it should be understood that the one mentioned here includes all the institutional spheres of the power of the State, so that the Executive, the Legislature, the Judiciary and all the other areas of the State, within their terms of reference, are also subject to them. Radio frequencies and rights of private individuals 14. The legal conditions for the use of radio frequencies has been one of the important aspects disputed in this case. As described in the judgment, during the proceedings the representatives of the victims argued that an alleged right to “automatic renewal” of the right to the use of the frequency allocated to RCTV had been violated, while the State affirmed that the right to automatic renewal did not exist under Venezuelan law. 15. In this regard, the Court was clear in establishing, first, the power of the States “to regulate broadcasting activities, and this covers not only the possibility of defining the way in which concessions, renewals or revocations of licenses are handled, but also the possibility of planning and implementing the relevant public policies.”18 However, at the same time, the Court clarified that this is so, “provided that the standards imposed by the right to freedom of expression are respected. This is because the granting or renewal of a broadcasting concession cannot be compared to that of other public services because the scope of the right to freedom of expression must permeate the respective regulation.”19 16. By the same token, the State’s ability to regulate this area must not only respect and ensure the right to freedom of expression in general but, in particular, must seek to ensure pluralism taking into account that the radioelectric spectrum is a limited resource, which restricts the number of media that have access to it. Therefore, the Court established that “it is necessary to ensure that this media represents a diversity of news and opinion viewpoints or positions. […] The foregoing should be taken into account in the procedures for the granting and renewal of broadcasting concessions or licenses.”20 Based on considerations such as this, the Court was emphatic in establishing that “any limits or restrictions arising from broadcasting laws and regulations should take into account the guarantee of the pluralism of the media, given its importance for the functioning of a democratic society.”21 17. Applying this reasoning to the instant case, taking into consideration the elements of law and the proven facts, the Court concluded that this guarantee of pluralism had been impaired by the actions of the State. This was not because RCTV had been denied an alleged right to “automatic renewal,” which the Court noted that the State was not obliged to grant under either domestic law or international law, 22 but owing to the lack of objective criteria used by the authority in the case of RCTV and the serious violation of the guarantees of due process that prevented the executives of this company from negotiating the renewal of the license that expired on May 27, 2007. 18. As the Court established in this judgment, “starting in 2002, indications were given that the television channels that did not modify their editorial line would not have their concessions renewed.”23 The real reasons for the decision in the case of 18 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 165. 19 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 165. 20 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 170. 21 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 170. 22 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, paras. 178 to 180. 23 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 193.