5 RCTV were “that RCTV had not modified its editorial line following the 2002 coup” and “the alleged improper actions of RCTV”; however, these reasons were not even mentioned at the time by the authorities as justification for the decision. It should be noted that the Court established that “it [was] contradictory that comments and accusations were made in relation to the alleged sanctions and that Communication No. 0424 indicated expressly that these were not the justification for the decision.”24 19. In this context, the Court established that the violation of Article 13 “involved a misuse of power because the State used its lawful authority in order to try and align the communications outlet’s editorial line with the government,”25 which constituted the Court’s core conclusion in this case: that it was “an indirect restriction of the exercise of the right to freedom of expression by measures aimed at preventing the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions, when the State decided that it would reserve to itself the portion of the spectrum and, therefore, prevent the participation in the administrative procedures for the adjudication of the titles or the renewal of the concession of a media outlet that expressed opinions that were critical of the government.”26 20. Considerations such as this led the Court to conclude that, in this case there had been a violation of “Article 13(1) and 13(3) in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of Marcel Granier, Peter Bottome, Jaime Nestares, Inés Bacalao, Eladio Lárez, Eduardo Sapene, Daniela Bergami, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, Soraya Castellano, María Arriaga and Larissa Patiño.”27 Guarantees and due process 21. To decide this case, the Court made a rigorous and impartial examination based on the factual and legal arguments submitted by the parties and the Commission, and the evidence in the case file. Regarding the specific aspect of judicial guarantees and judicial protection, this called for a detailed examination of the information obtained on each of the domestic proceedings to determine whether there had been violations of Article 8 of the Convention and of judicial protection in order to arrive at the conclusions reached in this case. 22. The legal considerations in this judgment regarding judicial guarantees and due process are conclusive in finding the violations that occurred in this case to several of the rights that are in dispute. 23. As in other cases decided by this Court, violations of the procedural guarantees have a direct impact on other substantive rights – in this case freedom of expression. Owing to the nature of this case, the fact that the administrative procedures for the transformation of the titles and renewal of the RCTV concession were not executed was a determinant factor in its non-renewal. As the Court established, “a procedure did exist for the transformation of the titles and for the renewal of concessions in the laws of Venezuela and […] the RCTV legal representatives initiated this procedure by submitting the said requests. However, […] the State took the decision not to apply the procedure,”28 “thus violating the judicial guarantees established in Article 8(1) in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of Marcel Granier, Peter Bottome, Jaime 24 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 194. 25 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 197. 26 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 199. 27 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 199. 28 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 251.