values, resources and potential for development and human progress.” 159 Its programming, 90% of which is in the Mam language, includes community news and traditional music, among other topics. 160 b) Broadcasting regulation 112. This Court has recognized the States’ authority and the need to regulate broadcasting activities, 161 which is also recognized by the International Telecommunication Union. 162 In light of the foregoing considerations, the Court agrees with the Commission that such regulation should be aimed at ensuring pluralistic, diverse, inclusive 163 and independent broadcasting. 164 Furthermore, in order to ensure the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression to a larger number of persons or social sectors and, consequently, a greater circulation of opinions and information, the regulation must be clear, transparent and democratic. 113. In the case of Granier et al. v. Venezuela, the Court established that, since the radioelectric spectrum is a limited resource with a specific number of frequencies, this restricts the number of media that have access to it so that it is necessary to ensure that this media represents a diversity of news and opinions, viewpoints or positions. The Court emphasized that “pluralism of ideas in the media cannot be measured based on the number of media [outlets]; rather the ideas and information broadcast must truly be diverse and approached from different perspectives, without just one viewpoint or position existing. This should be taken into account in the procedures for the granting and renewal of broadcasting concessions or licenses. The Court considers that any limits or restrictions arising from broadcasting laws and regulations should take into account the need to ensure pluralism in the media, given its importance for the functioning of a democratic society.” 165 114. At the same time, the regulation of radio broadcasting, as well as the effective allocation of radio or television licenses, have a decisive impact on the right to freedom of expression, both of the individuals and groups who express themselves through the allocated frequencies, and of society as a whole, which will have access to certain authorized voices and opinions. Therefore, in the allocation and use of radio frequencies, the State must act within the framework of the broadest recognition of freedom of expression without discrimination of any kind. Cf. Statement of Juan Jerónimo (evidence file, folios 1113 to 1114). Cf. Statement of Rosendo Pablo, supra. 161 Cf. Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Television) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 165. 162 The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is the specialized agency of the United Nations for information and communication technologies. The State of Guatemala, through Decree 88-98 of the Congress of the Republic, approved the Constitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union, signed in the city of Kyoto, Japan, on October 14, 1994 (evidence file, folio 1269). 163 In her expert opinion, the expert witness Adriana Labardini stated that the regulation of the radio spectrum should be consistent with “democratic criteria that ensure equal opportunities and access for all individuals.” Written version of the expert opinion presented before the Court by Adriana Sofía Labardini Inzunza, supra (evidence file, folios 1572 to 1612). Similarly, the amicus curiae brief presented by the International Human Rights Practicum of Boston College Law School, and the amicus curiae brief presented by OBSERVACOM (Observatorio Latinoamericano de Regulación de Medios y Convergencia) and the World Association of Community Broadcasters. 164 Cf. OAS, IACHR. Freedom of Expression Standards for Free and Inclusive Broadcasting, supra, para. 8. 165 Cf. Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Television) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 170. In this regard, the European Court in the Case of United Christian Broadcasters Ltd v. United Kingdom - in which a broadcasting license was refused because the company only had religious programming – established that the aim of protecting the rights of others was associated with the protection of diversity and pluralism, because the State sought to “ensure that the limited spectrum available for national radio broadcasting [was] distributed in such a way as to satisfy as may radio listeners as possible [and] ensure that any one [religious] viewpoint is not allowed to dominate to the disadvantage of others.” On that occasion, the European Court stressed that this argument was applicable both to religious organizations and to organizations of a political nature. ECHR, Case of United Christian Broadcasters Ltd v. United Kingdom, No. 44802/98. Decision of November 7, 2000. 159 160 -32-