column, under our very noses. I couldn’t care less what the oligarchs of the world say! […] What I’m saying is this: I have ordered a review of the television concessions. Some stations or channels have signaled that they’re ready to change, and it would appear that they intend to obey the Constitution and the law, joining those who supported the coup, which was everyone.3 11. The petitioners state that on that same day, William Lara, Minister of Communications and Information (MINCI), asserted that the State had the authority not to renew the concessions of those media outlets whose behavior had not changed since April 11 and 12, 2002. According to the petitioners, those statements were echoed by other state officials and by President Chávez on numerous occasions. For example, they point to a December 1, 2006 conversation between the President and journalist Carlos Croes: [President] Chávez: “Of course, a channel or station that hasn’t changed, whose owners have declared themselves to be enemies of the Government.” Carlos Croes: “And don’t they have a right?” [President] Chávez: “To declare themselves to be enemies of a government?” Carlos Croes: “Well, if they don’t agree [with the government]?” [President] Chávez: “Oh, well, then the government has a right to either grant them a concession or not grant it. It is a question of liberties; as Head of State, I’m not required to grant them the concession. […] The government will evaluate the situation and make a decision when the time comes.” 4 12. The petitioners go on to explain that starting in December 2006, President Chávez and other high-ranking officials of the State proceeded to announce the government’s decision not to renew RCTV’s concession. They cite speeches supposedly made by agents of the State in which RCTV is referred to as a “fascist,” “irresponsible,” “venomous,” and “liar” broadcaster that “supported the coup.” The petitioners mention, for example, statements that President Chávez made on December 28, 2006, and on January 10 and 19, 2007, respectively, in which he allegedly said the following; i) “The television concession ends in March, […] so they better be packing their suitcases and figuring out what to do after March. There will be no new concession for Radio Caracas Televisión, which supported the coup”;5 ii) “[RCTV] has January, February, March, April and May [2007] and then they can scream, kick and do all they want to do, but the concession for that fascist channel is finished”6, and iii) “In May, we will nationalize –or better said, socializethat space on the electromagnetic spectrum, a public good historically controlled by Venezuela’s pro-imperialist elites.”7 13. The petitioners also describe how in February 2007, as part of a government campaign, the State published advertisements in the newspapers and placed posters in government offices that said the following: “Give [t]ruth the concession… RCTV … Don’t renew the concession for lying. The people have the power! (Bolivarian Government of Venezuela. Ministry of the People’s Power for Communications and Information).”8 It also published the “Libro Blanco sobre RCTV” [the White Book on RCTV]. They thus maintain that the real reason why the State refused to renew RCTV’s concession was to punish it for its opposition and to silence the only free-to-air television signal with nationwide coverage that was reporting information and ideas of every sort. 14. The petitioners assert that on January 24, 2007, due the statements made by State agents, RCTV wrote to CONATEL demanding that the latter recognize that the RCTV concession was good for the period specified in the Organic Telecommunications Law and corresponding laws, arguing that the decision announced by the President of the Republic was discriminatory, disproportionate and retaliatory in nature. The petitioners further assert that in response to that request, on March 29, 2007 the Minister of the People’s Power for Telecommunications and Information Technology (MPPTI) and the Director of CONATEL, Jesse Chacón Escamillo, sent RCTV Communication No. 0424, confirming the decision not to extend RCTV’s concession, citing 3 Communication received from the petitioners on February 18, 2010, p. 19. Communication received from the petitioners on February 18, 2010, p. 23. 5 Communication received from the petitioners on February 18, 2010, p. 24. 6 Communication received from the petitioners on February 18, 2010, pp. 25 and 26. 7 Communication received from the petitioners on February 18, 2010, p. 26. 8 Communication received from the petitioners on February 18, 2010, p. 29. 4 3