44 competition, technological development and encouragement of initiative, as well as the protection and guarantee of users”. 141. Second, States have a series of substantive obligations destined to prevent the occurrence of the actions proscribed by the aforementioned Article 13.3 as well as other guarantees in the Convention such as those stemming from Article 1.1. This latter norm prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of the human rights enshrined in the Convention on grounds, inter alia, of the “political or other opinion” of the person affected. In this regard, any content-based decision by the State regarding the allocation or renewal of a broadcasting license should be subjected to the strictest of scrutinies by this Commission. The Commission proceeds to analyze whether in the instant case the State of Venezuela complied with these procedural and substantive obligations. 142. From a procedural perspective, the Commission first observes that the dispute over the nonrenewal of RCTV's concession took place in the context of legal uncertainty for the station as a result of the lack of clarity regarding the legal framework applicable to its concession. As has been mentioned, on June 12, 2000, the State passed the organic telecommunications law, legislation that established a period of two years for the "transformation of current concessions and permits granted under the previous legislation," clarifying that "while this adjustment takes place, all the rights and obligations acquired under 180 the previous legislation will remain fully in force." Pursuant to this provision, RCTV requested the transformation of its concession. However, the State did not rule on the request within the period of two years established in the LOTEL, and the request was still unresolved when RCTV formally requested the 181 renewal of its concession in January of 2007. Meanwhile, “CONATEL continually and peacefully 182 applied the new LOTEL legal regime to RCTV." 143. The petitioners argue that notwithstanding the ambiguity regarding the applicable legal framework, RCTV's concession should have been extended, as a rigorous application of the LOTEL would have required extending the concession until June 12, 2022, while a strict application of 183 aforementioned decree No. 1577 would imply an extension until May 27, 2027. Regarding this, the Commission observes that its task in this case is not to determine which domestic law should have been applied and which interpretation of it is the correct one. It is enough to observe that RCTV had, as a minimum, the right to a clear and objective proceeding strictly regulated by law, and that at the moment of requesting renewal of its concession, it was not clear to the broadcaster which legal framework was applicable in this process. Given the State's failure to comply with the legal mandate to transform RCTV's concession, a situation of a lack of legal certainty exists that is inconsistent with the Venezuelan State’s obligation to establish a process for renewing concessions that are strictly regulated by law. 144. In addition, the Commission observes that the decision not to renew RCTV's concession and grant it to a new television station was not the result of an open and transparent process guided by clear, public and impartial criteria. As established, officials with responsibility for the decision announced that RCTV would not have the right to renewal given that it had violated the law. On this point, RCTV requested evidence from the State designed to prove the falsity of these affirmations. As discussed below, however, the evidence was denied. 145. RCTV was not allowed access to the administrative case file on its proceeding when it 184 requested as much from CONATEL. Nor did the RCTV request to present evidence in that proceeding receive a response until after the nonrenewal decision had been made, and at that time, the evidence 180 Annex 21, LOTEL, art. 210. 181 The request for transformation was finally rejected on March 28, 2003, through Resolution No. 002 of the Ministry of the People's Power for Telecommunications and Information Technology, Annex 49. 182 Cf. Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, p. 12. Fact not challenged by the State. 183 Annex 1, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, p. 121. 184 Annex 75, Request to CONATEL, March 21, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Annex 104