6. On February 28, 2010, the petitioners filed a petition with the Commission reiterating and updating the information they had reported in their March 1, 2007 submission. They also described new developments related to that petition and supplied still more information on March 22, April 15 and May 20, 2010. On this last occasion, they presented a list of the alleged victims included in their petition. Following a new preliminary analysis, the Commission proceeded to process this petition. Then, on March 11, 2011, the brief and its attachments were forwarded to the Venezuelan State, which was given two months in which to present its response. On June 15, 2011, the petitioners provided the Commission with a copy of a document from one of the domestic court records, which was sent to the State on June 16, 2011. As of the date of approval of this report, the Venezuelan State has not presented its response to the petition. III. THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioners 7. The petitioners contend that the alleged victims are shareholders, executives and/or journalists at Radio Caracas Televisión RCTV, C.A. 2 They assert that RCTV, a media outlet, is operated as a free-to-air VHF (very high frequency) television station broadcasting news and airing opinion-based programs. According to the petitioners, RCTV maintained an independent editorial line that was critical of the government and of the process known as the “Bolivarian Revolution.” 8. The petitioners contend that, under Decree No. 1,577 of May 27, 1987, the State had granted RCTV a concession to operate a free-to-air television station and to use its frequency on the broadcast spectrum for a period of 20 years –in other words, until May 27, 2007-; at the end of that period, when the time came to extend the concession, the company then in possession of the concession would be given preferential treatment. 9. The petitioners report that on June 12, 2000, the State adopted the Organic Telecommunications Law [Ley Orgánica de Telecomunicaciones (LOTEL)] whereby it established a new system; pre-existing services with concessions, operating licenses or permits would have to conform to the requirements of the new system. They explain, however, that under LOTEL , the purpose, coverage and “lapse” of any concession already granted by the time the new Organic Telecommunications Law entered into force were supposed to be honored. According to the petitioners, the “lapse” was the period specified in Decree No. 1,577. The petitioners state that as required under the LOTEL, RCTV applied to have the terms of its license adapted to conform to the requirements of the new system, and to that end filed an application with CONATEL on June 5, 2002. They assert that CONATEL ignored their application and proceeded to enforce, in the case of RCTV, the new system of regulations and requirements instituted under LOTEL. 10. The petitioners argue that as far back as 2003, independent television stations or channels in Venezuela faced the threat of losing the concessions they needed to operate. They maintain that back in June 2006, agents of the State stepped up the threats against RCTV because of its editorial line. They assert that on June 14, 2006, during a ceremony at the Ministry of Defense, the President of the Republic, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías (hereinafter “President Chávez”) announced that: We’re going to have to take a second look at concessions granted to television stations that are close to expiration […] We cannot be so irresponsible as to continue to grant concessions to a handful of people who, availing themselves of the spectrum that is the property of the State –and by that I mean the peoplethen operate those stations and use them against us, functioning like a fifth 2 According to the list supplied by the petitioners, the petition is being filed on behalf of the following alleged victims: a) Marcel Granier, Peter Bottome and Jaime Nestares, shareholders and executives; b) Jean Nestares, Fernando Nestares, Alicia Phelps de Tovar and Francisco J. Nestares, shareholders; c) Eladio Lárez, Daniela Bergami, Edgardo Mosca, Anani Hernández, Inés Bacalao, José Simon Escalona, Isabel Valero, Odila Rubin, Oswaldo Quintana, Carlos Lamas and Grilva Delgado, executives; d) Eduardo Sapene, executive and journalist; and e) Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, Soraya Castellano, María Arriaga and Larissa Patiño, journalists. Cf. Communication received from the petitioners on May 20, 2010. 2