3 the exercise of the right to freedom of expression by measures aimed at preventing the communication and circulation of ideas […], when the State decided that it would reserve to itself the portion of the [radioelectric] spectrum and, therefore, prevent the participation in the administrative procedures for the adjudication of titles or the renewal of the concession.”11 And, one more effect of this real and unlawful objective was the violation of “due process” established in Article 8 of the American Convention, because “the purpose of the termination of the administrative procedures for the transformation of the titles and the renewal was to silence the media outlet”;12 hence, it would have been necessary that the said administrative procedures continued in order to decide on the transformation or renewal of the concession. 8. Closely connected to the above violation of freedom of expression, the Court also declared the violation of the right to “equality before the law” established in Article 24 of the Pact of San José, because the State’s decision to reserve for itself the portion of the spectrum allocated to RCTV constituted “discriminatory treatment” in the exercise of the right to freedom of expression of the victims.13 Indeed, the judgment found proved that the State had applied “differential treatment based on its satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a channel’s editorial line,” which also had “a dissuasive, intimidating and inhibiting effect” on the media, journalists and public in general who exercised their right to freedom of expression, by sending a “threatening message to the other media of what could happen to them if they followed an editorial line similar to that of RCTV.”14 Consequently, “the failure to allow the exercise of the right to freedom of expression in equal conditions prevents the public debate on issues of interest to society that is essential for the protection of democracy and the pluralism of the media.”15 9. In light of these violations, I find it particularly relevant to highlight some of the measures of reparation adopted in the judgement; in particular, that the State must “reestablish the concession of the frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum corresponding to television’s channel 2.” In this regard, the State must return to RCTV the assets subject to the “unspecified interim measures” ordered, ex officio, by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice;16 and when the RCTV concession has been re-established, “the State must, within a reasonable time, order the opening of an open, independent and transparent process to grant the frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum corresponding to television channel 2,” pursuant to the relevant domestic law. 10. These “measures of restitution” adopted by the Inter-American Court are in keeping with the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,17 because “[t]he reparation 11 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 199. 12 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 252. On May 27, 2007, in addition to the RCTV concession, the concessions of four other television outlets terminated; however, those concessions were renewed and they included that of Venevisión, a private free-to-air television station that operated on the VHF band, covered almost all national territory, and had an audience very similar to that of RCTV. See Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 102. 13 14 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 234. 15 Idem. The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice ordered, ex officio, by means of unspecified interim measures, the temporary transfer to CONATEL of the use of the assets owned by RCTV so that they could be used by TVes, because that station did not have the necessary infrastructure to transmit nationwide. Similarly, by Decision No. 957, the Constitutional Chamber assigned to CONATEL the right of use of the equipment required for the television operations, so that it could grant the use to the operator selected in accordance with the provisions of the LOTEL, in order to guarantee the continuity of the provision of a universal public service. Both measures were executed on May 27 ad 28, that year and both measures involved RCTV’s assets. 16 Article 63(1) of the Convention stipulates that “[i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that 17