2 4. In this case, the Inter-American Court has confirmed its case law that, although the category of legal persons has not been explicitly recognized by the American Convention (as in the European system),6 this does not restrict the possibility that, in certain circumstances, the physical person, as an individual, may resort to the inter-American system for the protection of human rights to assert his fundamental rights, even when they are covered by a legal device or fiction created by the legal system itself. 7 5. In this way, “restrictions to freedom of expression frequently occur due to actions of States or individuals that affect, not only the legal person that constitutes a media outlet, but also all the natural persons, such as its shareholders or the journalists who work there, who communicate through it, and whose rights may also be violated.”8 And this occurred in this specific case, in which the victims are physical persons who, in their capacity as shareholders, executives, journalists or employees of “Radio Caracas Televisión” (RCTV), had recourse to the inter-American system alleging, in their individual capacity, the violation of different rights established in Articles 8 (judicial guarantees), 13 (freedom of thought and expression), 21 (property), 24 (equality before the law) and 25 (judicial protection), in relation to Articles 1(1) (respect and guarantee of rights) and 2 (domestic legal provisions) of the Pact of San José, as a result of the closure of the company owing to the State’s decision not to renew the concession and to reserve to itself the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum allocated to RCTV. Thus, RCTV, as a means of social communication constituted the vehicle through which the victims exercised fully their right to freedom of expression. 6. The key aspect of the judgment is the violation of Article 13(3) of the American Convention,9 based on evidence of an indirect restriction of the exercise of the right to freedom of expression. Indeed, this case arises in a scenario in which the Inter-American Court has found, and considered proved, that the facts involved a “misuse of power” — a concept used by the Court in other cases10 — because the State used a permitted power in order to conceal actions taken in the domestic sphere. The judgment declared that this had been proved owing, essentially, to the statements made by the President of the Republic at the time and different authorities, as well as to diverse official documents which alluded to the fact that the decision not to renew the RCTV concession had been taken previously and that it was related to the displeasure caused by the RCTV editorial line that was critical of the government. 7. This “misuse of power” had an impact on RCTV, not only in the individual dimension by preventing the full exercise of the right to freedom of expression of the victims who exercised this through the said media outlet, but particularly in the “social dimension” of this right, because it was the Venezuelan people who were deprived of access to the editorial line that RCTV represented. The real and undeclared purpose that the government sought was that of silencing the voices that criticized it. In this way, “there was an indirect restriction of Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (known as Protocol No. 1), adopted on March 20, 1952, and entered into force on May 18, 1954. 6 Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 7, 2001. Series C No. 85, para. 29. and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 399. 7 8 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 151. “Art. 13(3). The right of expression may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of government or private controls over newsprint, radio broadcasting frequencies, or equipment used in the dissemination of information, or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions (underlining added). 9 On the concept and scope of the concept of “misuse of power,” see Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot in the Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador (Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013, especially paras. 120 to 137. 10