15 48. In this regard, it should not be forgotten that Article 13 of the Convention establishes that the right to freedom of expression establishes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds either orally, in writing, in print or artistically or by any other procedure of one’s choice; 72 consequently, such procedures include the financial participation by which a physical person is able to create or sustain a media outlet, in this way materializing the exercise of his or her freedom of expression. 49. The patrimonial participation of all the RCTV shareholders permitted the development of a family project that was able to maintain independence with regard to the decisions on the content of the programming transmitted by the channel. This participation in the social capital was part of the structure required for the independent development of the RCTV communications mission and it was shared by all its shareholders. 50. The independence of the RCTV communications project was defended by all its shareholders. This was revealed by the unanimous refusal of the State’s offer to buy RCTV, In this regard, Marcel Granier stressed that, in response to the purchase offer, all the shareholders decided to conserve their ownership of the media outlet, in part to avoid it being used for the government’s political propaganda.73 B.2.b) All the shareholders (majority and minority) agreed to have recourse to the interAmerican system 51. In addition, bearing in mind the exceptions developed by the European Court in its case law (see supra paras. 32 to 44 of this opinion), all those shareholders who form part of a legal person have the right to be given the status of “victim,” especially if, in the case of private media outlets, their assets are devoted to consolidating the plurality of information in a society. 52. In this regard, expert witness Rubio Llorente stated that freedom of expression in the private media protects not only the contents of their programs, but also their specific commercial activities, which is vital for their subsistence in the market. The freedom and independence of the editorial line of the private television media is due, above all, to the fact that their financing does not come from public funds. He added that whatever the personal reasons of the shareholders of the communication company, or their level of involvement in its management, or the significance of the profit motive that inspires their activity, both the shareholders and the company are protected by freedom of expression. Regarding the degree of harm caused, the expert witness pointed out that, although there may be differences in the degree of harm, these may be taken into consideration to weigh the severity of the harm caused by the refusal to renew the concession because this decision impaired the freedom of expression of the media outlet and, consequently, of each of the shareholders. 74 53. In this case, there was no dispute or discrepancy among the shareholders of RCTV, either majority or minority, in the decision to have recourse to the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, because each and every one of them has requested the protection of his or her rights before the organs of the system and, thus, they are victims/plaintiffs in the case sub judice. It is all the shareholders of RCTV who, together, represent the total ownership of the media outlet; so that there was no risk of discrepancies between them when they decided to have recourse to inter-American protection. In addition, all of them approved the RCTV editorial line and information and, despite the threats of closure 72 American Convention on Human Rights, Article 13. 73 Cf. Statement of witness Marcel Granier during the public hearing in this case. 74 Opinion of expert witness Francisco Rubio Llorente (merits file, folio 1678).