84 . Mavarez, Isnardo José Bravo, Javier García Flores, Luisiana Ríos Paiva, and Pedro Antonio Nikken García. Additionally, the State is responsible for the failure to comply with its obligation contained in Article 1(1) of the Convention of guaranteeing the freedom to seek, receive, and spread information acknowledged in Article 13(1) of the American Convention, in detriment of Anahís del Carmen Cruz Finol, Argenis Uribe, Herbigio Antonio Henríquez Guevara, Laura Cecilia Castellanos Amarista, Luis Augusto Contreras Alvarado, Noé Pernía, Samuel Sotomayor, Wilmer Marcano, and Winston Francisco Gutiérrez Bastardo. IX ARTICLES 13(1) AND 13(3) (FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION)329 330 AND 24 (RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION) IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) OF THE CONVENTION A) Pronouncement of public officials regarding the concession under which the RCTV station was operating 335. The Commission considered that the aforementioned pronouncements (supra paras. 126 and 127), specifically those that referred to the informative line of the private communication firms in Venezuela, to the use of the state-owned radio-electrical space by RCTV and the intervention channels the State could use could “have the effect of influencing the content, informative lines, and, in general, the ideas and thoughts broadcasted by the communication firm.” It held that a strong criticism to the informative line of the communication firm followed by possible consequences for maintaining it, coming from an authority with decisive power over these, on which its actual operative possibilities depend, constitute forms of indirect restriction on the freedom of expression. It asked the Court to declare the State responsible for the violation of Article 13(1) and 13(3) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of that instrument. 336. The representatives coincided with the above and stated that as of the year 2002 “private television stations –specifically RCTV- have been threatened with being closed or with the annulment of the concessions, as […] punishment [against] their independent editorial line and criticism of the government,” which was made real in this case with the decision adopted on May 27, 2007. They stated that the continuous and reiterated threats to end or annul the concession of RCTV constitute “a clear supposition of deviation of power” and the motivation to do so has nothing to do with the regimen of the concessions for the open television stations or with the interpretation of the applicable administrative law, but instead they seek to silence a media firm whose independence and critical expressions disturb the government’s political project. This is unacceptable in a democratic society and not compatible with the Convention, the OAS Charter, and the Inter-American Democratic Charter. 329 Article 13. Freedom of Thought and Expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice. […] 3. The right of expression may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of government or private controls over newsprint, radio broadcasting frequencies, or equipment used in the dissemination of information, or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions. 330 Article 24. Right to Equal Protection All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law.