55. In this case the content of the conversations do not refer to matters relating to private life or reputation of the participants in the conversation. By contrast, the talks revolve around the reasons that supported the dismissal, particularly, whether the signature to convene a recall referendum was the real motivation. In that sense, the use of the conversation in this report does not disclose aspects of the private life of the people involved but rather could legitimately be described as matters of public interest, taking into special consideration the allegations regarding the existence of a generalized context of retaliation. 56. The European Court has ruled on sanctions against media for spreading the recording of a telephone conversation between senior state officials. In the case of Radio Twist v. Slovakia7, this Court noted that from the context and content of the conversation, the political and public interest character of it was evident, without it being possible to determine a dimension related to the private lives of such persons. Consequently, the European Court found that the special standard of tolerance established in its case law was applicable, and found that the sanction imposed was not necessary in a democratic society. 57. Another element that the Commission considers relevant to take into account relates to the characteristics of this case. The main debate that the Commission must resolve is whether the dismissal of the three alleged victims was based on their signatures to convene a recall referendum of the then President of the Republic. In that sense, what is argued is that there is an alleged covert discrimination behind a veil of legality consistent in a contractual clause. In such cases, by its very nature, there is generally no direct evidence about the presence of a prohibited ground of discrimination, in this case, political opinion. This explains the reasons why the Commission must consider indicia and circumstantial evidence in such cases. The recordings of the telephone conversation are another element of the evidence provided to the Commission. 58. Considering all the above elements as a whole, the Commission considers that the use of the transcripts and the recordings of the telephone conversations is justified in this case and, therefore, will proceed to consider the, on the subsequent factual determinations. B. Context of the petition for signatures for convening the consultative and recall referendum of the President of the Republic 1. The first collection of signatures for the presidential consultative referendum 59. The Venezuelan Political Constitution, enacted in 1999, enshrines under Articles 71 and 72 the possibility to withdraw all charges and magistrates elected by popular vote after half of the period for which the civil servant was elected for has passed, by the request to convene a referendum by no fewer than twenty percent of voters registered in the pertinent circumscription8. 7 Radio Twist v. Slovakia. Paras. 56 – 65. Article 71 of the Constitution establishes that: Matters of special national transcendence may be referred to a consultative referendum, on the initiative of the President of the Republic, taken at a meeting of the Cabinet; by resolution of the National Assembly, passed by a majority vote; or at the request of a number of voters constituting at least 10% of all voters registered on the national, civil and electoral registry. Matters of special state, municipal and parish transcendence may also be referred to a consultative referendum. The initiative shall be taken by the Parish Board, the Municipal Council and to the Legislative Council, by the vote of two third of its members; by the Mayor and the Governor or by a number of voters constituting at least 10% of the total number of voters registered in the pertinent circumscription. In turn, Article 72 stipulates that: All magistrates and other offices filled by popular vote are subject to revocation. Once half of the term of office to which an official has been elected has elapsed, a number of voters constituting at least 20% of the voters registered in the pertinent circumscription may extend a petition for the calling of a referendum to revoke such official's mandate. When a number of voters equal to or greater than the number of those who elected the official vote in favor of revocation, provided that a number of voters equal to or greater than 25% of the total number of registered voters have voted in the revocation election, the official's mandate shall be deemed revoked, and immediate action shall be taken to fill the permanent vacancy in accordance with the provided for in this Constitution and by law. The revocation of the mandate for the collegiate bodies shall be performed in accordance with the law. During the term to which the official was elected, only one petition to recall may be filed. See Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Extraordinary Official Gazette no. 36,380 of December 30, 1999, available at: http://www.cne.gob.ve/web/normativa_electoral/constitucion/titulo3.php#cap4. 8 9