REPORT No. 114/11 PETITION 243-07 ADMISSIBILITY MARCEL GRANIER ET AL. VENEZUELA1 July 22, 2011 I. SUMMARY 1. On March 1, 2007, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or the “IACHR”) received a petition filed by Carlos Ayala Corao and Pedro Nikken (hereinafter “the petitioners”) in which they alleged that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “the State” or “the Venezuelan State”) was responsible for violations of the human rights of Mr. Marcel Granier and 22 other shareholders, executives and/or journalists at the television station Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV) (hereinafter “the alleged victims”). 2. According to the petitioners, the State decided not to renew RCTV’s license or concession to operate as a television station in order to silence that media outlet and thus prevent it from airing anti-government opinions, criticism and news. They also point that by means of a court proceeding to which the alleged victims were not party, the State decided on its own initiative to takeover RCTV’s broadcasting equipment, which it did without giving the alleged victims a court hearing or due process, and without paying them compensation. The petitioners contend that this, combined with the State’s failure to respond to the remedies filed by the alleged victims, would constitute a violation of the rights to a fair trial, to freedom of thought and expression, to private property, to equality and non-discrimination, and to judicial protection, recognized in articles 8, 13, 21, 24 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”), all this in conjunction with the general obligations undertaken in articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. Finally, the petitioners contend that the petition is admissible because of an unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment on the domestic remedies, which is the exception allowed under Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention to the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies. 3. As of the date of approval of this report, the Venezuelan State has not filed its response to the petition. 4. After examining the position of the parties on the basis of the admissibility requirements set forth in articles 46 and 47 of the Convention, the Commission concludes that it is competent to take up the petition and that the petition is admissible with respect to the alleged violation of the rights recognized in articles 8, 13, 24 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the alleged victims, who are RCTV shareholders, executives and/or journalists. The petition is also admissible with respect to the alleged violation of the right to private property protected under Article 21 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof and to the detriment of the alleged victims who are RCTV shareholders. The Commission therefore orders that the parties be notified of the report, which is to be published and included in the Commission’s Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 5. The petitioners filed a petition with the IACHR on March 1, 2007. In their submission, they requested that the Commission ask the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to order provisional measures for the alleged victims. On April 23, 2007, the IACHR decided to deny this request from the petitioners. Also, the petitioners provided additional information on their petition on March 14, June 20, and August 18, 2007. Following a preliminary analysis, on October 16, 2007 the Commission informed the petitioners that the petition could not be processed because the Commission had no way of establishing whether the remedies under domestic law had been pursued and exhausted. In keeping with Article 17(2) of the Commission’s Rules of procedure, Commissioner Luz Patricia Mejía Guerrero, a Venezuelan national, did not participate in either the discussion of or the decision on this petition. 1 1