PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ALBERTO PÉREZ PÉREZ CASE OF GRANIER ET AL. (RADIO CARACAS TELEVISIÓN) V. VENEZUELA JUDGMENT OF JUNE 22, 2015 (Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs) 1. I have voted against declarative paragraphs 3 and 4, and operative paragraphs 15 and 16, for the following reasons. I. Freedom of enterprise and not freedom of expression 2. The central point of my dissent stems from the third operative paragraph which declares a violation of “Article 13(1) and 13(3) in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention owing to an indirect restriction of the exercise of the right to freedom of expression 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.” In my opinion, the rights defended by the presumed victims are not related to freedom of expression, but rather to the financial interests of those who, through a complicated network of legal entities,1 are the real owners of RCTV C.A, as indirect shareholders. (In the interests of brevity, although with less precision, we will refer to them as “shareholders.”) Subjective aspect 3. Initially, in the original petition lodged before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (“the Commission”), the representatives identified as presumed victims physical persons who, according to their description, “were RCTV shareholders, journalists or employees.”2 They identified the 78 persons who appear in footnote 11 of the judgment as “journalists,” the 89 persons who appear in footnote 12 as “employees,” the 14 personas who appear in footnote 9 as “executives,” and the seven persons who appear in footnote 10 as “shareholders.” This gives a total of 187 persons, because Marcel Granier appears on the last two lists, as a Board member and shareholder.3 In the brief with motions, pleadings and evidence the “executives” became “employees” and four members of the Board who had not appeared in any of the original lists were added4 (footnote 12, second paragraph) 4. That list was drastically reduced to only 21 (including 7 shareholders) in the Commission’s Merits Report5 and, in relation to violation of Article 13(1) and 13(3), and reduced even further, to 11 (including 3 shareholders), in the judgment.6 In reality, according 1 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 65. 2 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 20. 3 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 20. 4 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 20, footnote 12. 5 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 21. 6 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, operative paras. 3 and 4.