4 I. INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. The case submitted to the Court. On February 28, 2013, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention and Article 35 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted the case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) versus the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “the State,” “the Venezuelan State” or “Venezuela”) to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. This case relates to the alleged violation of the “freedom of expression of [the] shareholders, executives and journalists” of “Radio Caracas Televisión” (hereinafter “RCTV”), owing to “the State’s decision not to renew […] the concession.” Based on this, the Commission concluded that “the State [… had] failed to abide by its substantive and procedural obligations where the allocation and renewal of broadcast licenses was concerned[; and] that the dispute concerning the non-renewal of RCTV’s license occurred in a context of legal uncertainty for the network, [owing to the lack of] clarity as to the legal framework applicable to the license.” It also indicated that the State’s decision “was based on the network’s editorial line[, constituting] a clear act of misuse of power and an indirect restriction incompatible with Article 13(1) and 13(3) of the Convention.” Furthermore, it indicated that the State had “committed a violation of the right to equality and freedom from discrimination.” Lastly, it alleged presumed violations of due process and judicial protection in the context of the administrative and judicial proceedings held before and after the channel’s closure. 2. Procedure before the Commission. The procedure before the Commission was as follows: a) Petition. The initial petition was lodged before the Commission on February 18, 2010, by Carlos Ayala Corao and Pedro Nikken. b) Admissibility Report. On July 22, 2011, the Commission adopted Admissibility Report No. 114/11.1 c) Merits Report. On November 9, 2012, the Commission adopted Merits Report No. 112/12,2 under Article 50 of the Convention (hereinafter also “the Merits Report”), in which it reached a series of conclusions and made several recommendations to the State: Conclusions. The Commission concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of Articles 13 and 24 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Marcel Granier, Peter Bottome, Jaime Nestares, Edgardo Mosca, Anani Hernández, Inés Bacalao, José Simón Escalona, Eladio Lárez, Odila Rubin, Oswaldo Quintana, Eduardo Sapene, Daniela Bergami, Isabel Valero, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, Soraya Castellano, María Arriaga and Larissa Patiño, as well as of the rights recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1), to the detriment of the persons indicated above and also Jean Nestares, Fernando Nestares, Alicia Phelps de Tovar and Francisco J. Nestares. Recommendations. Consequently, the Commission made a series of recommendations In this report, the Commission decided that the petition lodged by Carlos Ayala Corao and Pedro Nikken was admissible in relation to the presumed violations of “Articles 8, 13, 21, 24 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument.” Admissibility Report No. 27/08, Case of Marcel Granier et al. v. Venezuela of July 22, 2011 (evidence file, folios 781 to 793). 1 2 86). Cf. Merits Report No. 112/12, Case of Marcel Granier et al. v. Venezuela, November 9, 2012 (merits file, folios 9 to