examination does not imply any prejudgment or advance any opinion as to the merits of the case.12 39. The jurisprudence of the Inter-American System has held that interference in a media outlet could become a violation of the right protected under Article 13 of the American Convention in the case of those persons who use that outlet to express or circulate opinions and information. 13 According to the Commission, it is through the communications media that directors, editors and journalists are able to exercise their right to freedom of expression as individuals.14 In effect, just as trade unions are instruments for the exercise of workers’ right to association and political parties are vehicles for the exercise of citizens’ political rights, media outlets are mechanisms that enable the exercise of the fundamental right to freedom of expression by those who use the outlet to disseminate ideas and information. As a result, the Commission has to consider how a measure imposed on a media outlet can affect the fundamental right of its members, while clearly distinguishing these effects from the sanction’s possible impact on other spheres of the outlet’s commercial or corporate activities.15 40. As the Commission has already established, in cases such as this, in order to determine whether the encumbrance of a media outlet (a legal person) had, by extension, a substantial and real negative impact on the right to freedom of thought and expression of the alleged victims, the following would have to be examined: i) the origin, nature and scope of the action that triggered the restriction; ii) the role that the alleged victims have within the media outlet, and iii) whether in fact the interference in the media outlet could have affected the right to freedom of expression of these persons. Under the Commission’s practices, these criteria provide a frame of reference for distinguishing cases in which the rights of a business are at stake, from those in which a natural person’s human rights have been adversely affected. 16 This analysis must also consider that the communications media are real vehicles for exercising the right to freedom of expression.17 41. One of the allegations in the instant case is that the decision not to renew RCTV’s concession and to hand over its tangible assets to the State under the conditions herein described, is a retaliatory measure whose effect was to materially punish those who exercised their freedom of expression by way of a media outlet and to prevent them from exercising that freedom in the conditions they had. The petitioners contend that the measure is not a legitimate exercise of the state’s authority; instead, it is the product of a discriminatory decision calculated to punish the shareholders, executives and journalists at RCTV because of its editorial line, which they claim is self-evident in the statements made by the highest-ranking government officials when discussing the opinions and information aired by that media outlet and the evidence that disproves the formal reasons given in the document reporting that the concession was not being renewed. The petitioners assert that the government authorities publicly threatened the alleged victims that concession would be revised if they did not change the media outlet’s angle on the news and opinions it circulated. In effect, they alleged that two free-to-air television stations, RCTV and Venevisión, were in operation and had the same business model, the same technical capability and the same legal status. However, the State’s treatment of the two stations was different because of their editorial lines. They also alleged that the decisions not to renew the concession and to hand over the use of its equipment to the State prevented the alleged victims from being able to exercise their right to freedom of expression; they also sent a powerful message of intimidation to journalists, executives and shareholders with other media outlets. 42. Given these considerations, the Commission finds that if the allegations made are true, then the petition is neither “manifestly groundless” nor “obviously out of order”. The Commission considers that there is prima facie evidence suggesting that the journalists named as alleged victims in the petition would have reported through RCTV. Furthermore, from their various 12 IACHR, Report No.21/04, Petition 12.190, José Luís Tapia González et al., Chile, Admissibility, February 24, 2004, paragraph. 33. IACHR, Report No. 72/11, Petition 1164-05, William Gómez Vargas, Costa Rica, March 31, 2011, paragraph 36. 14 IACHR, Report No. 72/11, Petition 1164-05, William Gómez Vargas, Costa Rica, March 31, 2011, paragraph 35. 15 IACHR, Report No. 72/11, Petition 1164-05, William Gómez Vargas, Costa Rica, March 31, 2011, paragraph 36. 16 See IACHR, Report No..67/01, Case 11.859, Tomás Enrique Carvallo Quintana, Argentina, June 14, 2001, paragraph 56; IACHR, Report No. 72/11, Petition 1164-05, William Gómez Vargas, Costa Rica, March 31, 2011, paragraph 36. 17 See I/A Court H.R., Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, paragraph 149. 13 9