6 generally, is to inform the public about the actions of the government.13 By isolating society from the important political events and social movements that were occurring at that time, RCTV itself violated the terms of freedom of expression. It is important to stress that RCTV inserted itself into the context of destabilization of democracy created by the coup d’état. According to the Inter-American Commission’s “Report on the situation of human rights in Venezuela” published in 2003, thus immediately after the coup d’état, it was possible to verify the tendentious nature of some media. Thus: 29. The IACHR has been concerned by the scant information, or at times total lack of information, available to Venezuelan society during the days of the institutional crisis of April. Although there may be any number of justifications to explain this lack of information, to the extent that the suppression of information resulted from politically-motivated editorial decisions, this should be the subject of an essential process of reflection by the Venezuelan media about their role at that moment.14 30. In this regard, the Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression even expressed concern “regarding the possibility that the Venezuelan media did not always act responsibly or ethically,” having “noted the actions by the media that had hindered Venezuelan society’s access to vital information during the tragic events of April 2002 that led to a coup d’état and subsequent restoration of democracy in Venezuela.”15 31. According to a report of the Human Rights Center of the Universidad Católica Andrés Bello, consulted by the Court when deliberating on its judgment, and included in paragraph 56 of the judgment which it is worth repeating here: 56. Similarly, the Human Rights Center of the Universidad Católica Andrés Bello indicated in its report entitled “Entre el estruendo y el silencio. La crisis de abril y el derecho a la libertad de expresión e información” that during the coup d’état of April 2002 “the main private television networks provide scant coverage of the demonstrations in favor of Chávez” and, once President Chávez had been reinstated, “the television networks began to transmit films, comic strips, soap operas and sports. The programs transmitted by the television networks at the time did not reflect the events that were taking place in the street, and appeared to be trying to deny that reality.” 32. This is supplemented by another citation from the said report: Meanwhile, the private media also restricted access to information, insofar as several channels transmitted the same information, without providing space to a diversity of news, including with regard to the same incident; while, on the political level in that context, they failed to reflect the political plurality that existed in the country and openly privileged the opposition sectors.16 33. In addition, the report included an illuminating description of individual participations: “Additionally, among the few activities that he carried out as Head of State during his brief government, [Pedro Carmona Estanga], the former President of Fedecámaras, held a meeting with the owners of the main media. Versions in the foreign press, cited by the Committee to Protect Journalists, indicate that the owners and executives of the country’s television networks and media met with Carmona on the Saturday morning. Subsequently, José Gregorio Vásquez, who had been appointed deputy minister of the Secretariat, in a public letter, confirmed that the owners of the media had been invited to a meeting with President Carmona, which was attended by the editor of the newspaper El Universal, Andrés Mata, the director general of Globovisión, Alberto Federico Ravell, the owners of Venevisión, Gustavo and Ricardo Cisneros, the editor of the newspaper El Nacional, Miguel Henrique Otero, the director of Special Rapporteurship for freedom of expression (Inter-American Commission for Human Rights). Freedom of Expression and Media Responsibility, Chapter V. Media Ethics, para. 2. 13 14 IACHR. Report on the situation of human rights in Venezuela (2003), para. 373. 15 IACHR. Report on the situation of human rights in Venezuela (2003), para. 471. See, Human Rights Center of the Universidad Católica Andrés Bello, “Entre el estruendo y el silencio. La crisis de abril y el derecho a la libertad de expresión e información, 2002. Available at: http://w2.ucab.edu.ve/tl_files/CDH/ recursos/entreelestruendoyelsilencio.pdf 16