Constitutional Chamber’s injunctions be handed over to RCTV; ii) that a mechanism be created to allow the television station to inspect its equipment, and iii) that it be provided a certified copy of the administrative record under which the concession was awarded to Televisora Venezolana Social (TEVES). Their contention is that CONATEL never responded to their petitions. 23. On the matter of the Commission’s competence ratione personae, the petitioners argue that the impact of work done by journalists relies on the availability of media outlets to effectively report the news the journalists uncover. They further assert that whenever necessary, members of the Board of Directors had a voice in the decisions taken on how RCTV was operated and its general orientation, and in the discussion of issues related to its editorial line. They also maintain that the shareholders put in their capital to establish and capitalize a media outlet that is essential to the exercise of freedom of expression in a democratic society and in so doing chose a medium through which to exercise their right to receive and disseminate information and ideas of all kinds. According to the petitioners, the company in which the shareholders have a stake, either directly or indirectly; can no longer perform the social function for which it was created. For these reasons, the petitioners contend that the alleged victims’ right to freedom of expression has been seriously violated as a result of the closing of RCTV. They further contend that the shareholders’ right to private property was also violated by the loss of share capital they sustained as a result of the channel’s shutdown and the seizure of its tangible assets. For all the foregoing reasons, they contend that by virtue of the facts alleged, the Venezuelan State is responsible for violations of the rights recognized in articles 8, 13, 21, 24 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligations undertaken in articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. B. The State 24. As of the date of adoption of this report, the State has not presented its response to the petition. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 25. Under Article 44 of the American Convention and Article 23 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the petitioners have locus standi to submit petitions to the Inter-American Commission. With regard to the State, Venezuela is party to the American Convention and therefore internationally answerable for violations of that instrument. The alleged victims are natural persons whose rights under the American Convention the State pledged to ensure. The Commission therefore has competence ratione personae to examine the complaint. 26. The Commission also has competence ratione materiae because the petition concerns alleged violations of human rights protected under the American Convention. Furthermore, because the facts as alleged in the present petition were said to have occurred subsequent to the date on which the Venezuelan State ratified the American Convention on August 9, 1977, the Commission also has competence ratione temporis to examine this petition. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione loci to examine the petition because the human rights violations alleged were said to have occurred within Venezuelan territory B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 27. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that in order for a complaint submitted to the Inter-American Commission to be admissible, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally accepted principles of international law. In furtherance of that article and in accordance with Article 31(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, when the petitioner contends that he or she is unable to prove compliance with this requirement, it is up to the State in question to show to the Commission that the remedies under domestic law have not been exhausted. In the instant case, Venezuela has not responded to the petition. 6