54 e) Oswaldo Quintana, Vice President for Legal Affairs, who handled the legal issues involved in program production and transmission by providing legal, fiscal and financial advice, and f) Isabel Valero, Vice President of the Executive Secretariat, responsible for providing advice, keeping the legal record of the decisions taken by the shareholders and coordinating the company’s historical archive. 235 159. Regarding these individuals, the Court understands that their work was necessary to permit and facilitate the production and broadcasting of the information content by means of the channel’s programming; however, it has not been proved that they had a real and direct impact on the company’s communications mission. 160. Jean Nestares, Fernando Nestares, Alicia Phelps de Tovar and Francisco J. Nestares had no specific function on the Board of Directors, so that there is no evidence proving their connection and contribution to the communications mission of the channel, that would establish that they exercised their freedom of expression through RCTV. Consequently, the Court will not consider them as presumed victims in the chapter on freedom of expression and equality. 1.3. Indirect restrictions – scope of Article 13(3) of the Convention 161. In this case it has been argued that there has been a possible indirect restriction on freedom of expression; therefore, the Court stresses that Article 13(3) of the Convention expressly refers to this situation when it indicates that: “[f]reedom of expression may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of government or private controls over newsprint, radio broadcasting frequencies, or equipment used in the dissemination of information, or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions.” The Court considers that the scope of Article 13(3) of the Convention results from reading this paragraph together with Article 13(1) of the Convention, in the sense that a broad interpretation allows it to be considered that it specifically protects the communication, dissemination and circulation of ideas and opinions so that the use of “indirect methods or means” to restrict this are prohibited.236 162. In this regard, the Court indicates that the purpose of this paragraph is to provide examples of more subtle forms of restriction of the right to freedom of expression by State authorities or individuals. Indeed, in previous cases, this Court has had the opportunity to declare the indirect restriction produced, for example, by a decision that “annulled the citizenship” of the majority shareholder of a television channel, 237 or by “criminal proceedings, the consequent sentence imposed […] for more than eight years and the restrictions to leave the country for eight years” against a presidential candidate.238 Certification of positions and description of activities adopted by the RCTV Board of Directors on July 29, 2011 (evidence file, folios 2788 to 2791). 235 Similarly, Article 5 of the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression establishes that “[p]rior censorship, direct or indirect interference in or pressure exerted upon any expression, opinion or information transmitted through any means of oral, written, artistic, visual or electronic communication must be prohibited by law. Restrictions to the free circulation of ideas and opinions, as well as the arbitrary imposition of information and the imposition of obstacles to the free flow of information violate the right to freedom of expression.” 236 Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, para. 162. This case related to the arbitrary deprivation of Ivcher Bronstein’s citizenship by the Peruvian State, in order to deprive him of the editorial control of the television channel he administered because the laws of Peru in force in 1997 established that it was necessary to be a Peruvian national in order to own companies that had television channel concessions in Peru. 237 Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 107. The facts of this case related to the conviction and the restrictions to leaving the country imposed on Ricardo Canese as a result of statements made while he was a presidential candidate. As a result of criminal proceedings against him, Mr. Canese was subjected to a permanent restriction to leave the country, which did not respect the 238