It affirmed that the raids and the seizure of assets belonging to the radio stations in this case were never intended to exercise censorship or to undermine the right to free expression, since the only reason for this action by the State was the illegal use of frequencies, which translates into the crime of theft or the interruption or obstruction of legally established communications. 75. As for the alleged violation of the right to equality before the law, Guatemala asserted that the criterion for allocating radio frequencies established by the LGT does not seek to discriminate or exclude indigenous peoples, but rather “responds to technical and objective criteria which the State, in its sovereign exercise of regulating the radio frequencies, decided was the most suitable for awarding them.” It argued that the use of a financial criterion in the public auction does not lead to any discrimination, since “the fact that some have more or less possibilities of entering a contest is a circumstantial or unforeseeable matter, which does not discriminate, since the opportunity to compete is available to all those with an interest. The contest is to compete and fight for the adjudication of the frequency.” It added that economic exploitation of a radio frequency is necessary for it to be sustainable and that awarding frequencies based on other interests could prejudice its sustainability and the interests of all the population. 76. Finally, the State argued that it cannot be held responsible for the violation of the cultural rights of the alleged victims, because the State’s actions to protect and improve radio broadcasting - a public good, which is considered to be a limited natural resource – cannot be construed as some type of censorship, deprivation or limitation of the right to promote culture in the country. It also affirmed that it recognizes the right to culture and is committed to promoting it in a comprehensive manner. B. Considerations of the Court 77. In view of the arguments presented by the parties and the Commission, as well as the facts of this case and the evidence in the case file, the Court considers it appropriate to divide the analysis of the alleged violations as follows: first, it will examine the impact of the regulation of broadcasting in Guatemala on the rights to freedom of expression, equality before the law and to participate in cultural life (1), and second, the alleged violation of Article 13(2) of the American Convention, in connection with the raids on the Ixchel and Uqul Tinamit “La Voz del Pueblo” community radio stations and the criminal prosecution of their operators (2). B.1 The regulation of broadcasting in Guatemala and the rights of indigenous peoples to freedom of expression, equality before the law and to participate in cultural life 78. The Court will now proceed to: a) establish the content and scope of the right to freedom of expression and its relationship with the community media of indigenous peoples; b) specify the content and scope of the rights related to the regulation of radio broadcasting; c) establish the content and scope of the right of indigenous peoples to participate in cultural life and its relationship with radio broadcasting, and d) analyze whether the regulation of broadcasting in Guatemala resulted in a violation of the rights of the alleged victims to freedom of expression, equality before the law and to participate in cultural life. a) The right to freedom of expression and the community media of indigenous peoples 79. Since Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, the Court has recognized freedom of expression as a cornerstone of the very existence of a democratic society, since it is “indispensable for the formation of public opinion. It is also a conditio sine qua non for the development of political -23-