61 there was sufficient evidence to determine that RCTV had executed acts contrary to free competition contained in paragraphs 1 and 3 of article 10 of the Pro-Competition Law, and therefore, on February 25, 2005, following due process, had imposed a fine of 21,360,723,955.13 bolivars. This action was justified under article 113 of the Constitution which establishes that “Monopolies shall not be permitted […]. The State shall adopt the necessary measures to avoid the harmful and restrictive effects of a monopoly […],” and (iii) on May 11, 2006, the Constitutional Chamber of the SCJ had issued an interim measure to protect joint and separate interests against publicity with sexually-charged images offering a telephone service, transmitted by RCTV every day starting at 1 a.m., called “Llamadas Calientes.” The Chamber ordered the prohibition of the emission because it considered that the repeated dissemination of these advertisements had a degenerating and disturbing effect on the population. In addition to these procedures alleged by the State, it presented evidence of the following proceedings: (i) administrative proceeding against RCTV instituted by the Ministry of Infrastructure on January 17, 2003. According to the court records, CONATEL assessed the channel’s programming between October 9, 2002, and January 5, 2003, and recommended the Ministry “to open an administrative proceeding to determine presumed non-compliance” with various rules contained in the Radiocommunications Regulations and in the Partial Regulation on Television Transmissions, and that “if appropriate, it apply the pertinent sanctions pursuant to” these instruments;269 (ii) in 2002, judicial proceedings were instituted by the National Council for the Rights of Children and Adolescents, by protection actions aimed at compliance with the Organic Law for the Protection of Children and Adolescent (LOPNA),270 and (iii) suspension of the program del “Una Rosa para un Cadáver” [A rose for a corpse].271 184. On this point, the Court notes that the proceedings and sanctions presented by the State are not directly related to the coup events and, in addition, it did not prove whether or not they involved the non-renewal of the concession. Moreover, it should be pointed out that this argument was only presented before the Court, because Communication No. 0424 expressly indicates that: “Regarding the inexistence of a sanction or accusation against RCTV Why has no sanction been imposed on RCTV as a result of an alleged complaint? The expiry of a time limit is not a sanction. Indeed, the expiry of the time for which the concession was granted to RCTV for the use and exploitation of a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum is not the result of a sanction, as the RCTV representatives are trying to claim […], but rather the effect of a natural and inexorable fact which is the passage of time, which produces the legal effects associated with that fact” (bold added). Court record of the opening of the administrative proceeding against RCTV on January 17, 2003 (evidence file, folios 23759 to 23775); Video “RCTV Informe de infracciones edición” (evidence file, minutes 1:24 to 1:48) in which it indicates that, “in 2003, during the transmission of the films “Gasper” [or] “Gasparín” and “Juego de Gemelas”, whose target audience, it is worth insisting, [are] children and adolescents, the television station inserted subliminal messages with a political content subsequently verified by a judicial inspection.” 269 Management Report, 2001-2006, of the National Council for the Rights of Children and Adolescents of August 2006 (evidence file, folio 26199); CONATEL “Report on the program ‘Justicia para todos’ transmitted by Radio Caracas Televisión, Channel 2” of June 2000 (evidence file, folios 12413 to 12435); Video “RCTV Informe de infracciones edición” (evidence file, minutes 1:49 to 3:45) which indicates that “the regular programming of RCTV, precisely the programs ‘La Entrevista’, ‘Loco Video Loco’, ‘El Observador’, ‘Ají Picante’ (now renamed Ají Dulce) and ‘Radio Rochela’ resulted in the institution of a protection action also by the [National Council for the Rights of Children and Adolescents and that,] according to the complainants, these programs violated articles 68, 75 and 79 the LOPNA”; Management Report, 2001-2006, of the National Council for the Rights of Children and Adolescents of August 2006 (evidence file, folios 26202 to 26204); Communication No. 001501 from CONATEL to RCTV dated April 5, 2006 (evidence file, folios 26187-26188); Communication No. 001504 from CONATEL to RCTV dated April 6, 2006 (evidence file, folios 26185 and 26186); Complaint of Joselín Dugarte filed with the National Council for the Rights of Children and Adolescents of September 1, 2005 (evidence file, folio 26195); Communication No. 13-097-2005 of the National Council for the Rights of Children and Adolescents to RCTV dated September 16, 2005 (evidence file, folio 26193); Communication No. 13117-2005 of the National Council for the Rights of Children and Adolescents to CONATEL dated September 29, 2005 (evidence file, folio 26192), and Video “RCTV Informe de infracciones edición” (evidence file, minutes 1:14 to 1:23). 270 271 Letter from CONATEL to RCTV of June 11, 2001 (evidence file, folios 14005-14007).