60 the fact that, in France and in Spain, the domestic laws establish an automatic renewal of concessions, but these examples are not sufficient to conclude a general rule. 266 In this regard, expert witness Cifuentes Muñoz indicated that: In the law, we find […] models which indicate precise terminations, they also include possibilities for renewals and, in some case, these may be automatic; in other case, when concessions or licenses end their conditions are amended. [Regarding the preferential right,] I don’t believe that it should always exist; it will necessarily depend on domestic law. 180. Based on the foregoing, it may be concluded that the alleged restriction in this case did not derive from the fact that RCTV’s concession was not rewed automatically, because from the preceding analysis it cannot be inferred that the State was obliged to do this. Nevertheless, the Court notes that, on two occasions, on May 6, 2002, and January 24, 2007, the petitioners asked CONATEL, respectively, to transform their titles and to follow the procedure for the renewal of the concession.267 The procedures corresponding to these requests were not executed because, according to the State, “when the validity of a concession expires […] there are no grounds for initiating an administrative procedure.” In this regard, Minister Chacón Escamillo issued Resolution No. 002 of March 28, 2007, in which he terminated the administrative procedure corresponding to the request to transform the titles. 268 In this resolution, based on the arguments set out in Communication No. 0424, it was decided: To declare that the administrative procedure initiated based on the request made by Radio Caracas Televisión […] concerning the transformation of the concession had terminated, because the request had expired. 181. Although the effects of this decision not to continue the procedure will be examined more thoroughly in the chapter on the presumed violation of Article 8 of the Convention (infra para. 243), the Court will now analyze the State’s actions that resulted in the non-renewal of the concession to determine whether the right to freedom of expression was violated in this case. To this end, the Court considers it fundamental to establish whether the said actions constituted an indirect restriction prohibited by Article 13(3) of the Convention. 3. Alleged indirect restriction of freedom of expression established in Article 13(3) of the American Convention 182. The Court notes that the Venezuelan State presented various arguments concerning the reasons behind its actions in this regard. Therefore, the Court will now determine: (i) the reasons related to the supposed sanctions applied to the television channel; (ii) the purpose declared in Communication No. 0424 and Resolution No. 002, and (iii) the alleged undeclared purpose related to RCTV’s editorial line. 183. The Court notes that the State argued that one of the reasons not to renew the RCTV concession was based on the alleged sanctions imposed on the channel for its actions during the 2002 coup as well as other actions. The State outlined the following sanctions in its arguments: (i) the National Integrated Customs and Tax Administration Service had imposed a fine on RCTV, in the form of a donation, for broadcasting political propaganda of groups opposed to Chávez. The payment, amounting to 1,041,660 bolivars, consisted of the taxes waived owing to the transmission of messages by the opposition that, it affirmed, were broadcast as donations during the industrial strike between December 2002 and January 2003; (ii) the Superintendence for the Protection and Promotion of Free Competition had decided that 266 28.2. Law 7/2010 of March 31, 2010, General Law on Audiovisual Communication (B.O.E. 2010, 5292) (Spain), art. Cf. Request to CONATEL of January 24, 2007 (evidence file, folios 3063 and 3064). Cf. Resolution No. 002 del Ministry of the People’s Power for Telecommunications and Information Technology of March 28, 2007 (evidence file, folios 3392 and 3393). 267 268