64 c) declaration of President Chávez during a telephone interview during the television program “Contragolpe” on January 3, 2007, in which he indicated: “Venezuela loses by having media like Radio Caracas Televisión. And not only Venezuela, good journalism suffers, freedom of expression suffers. […] It has not passed the test to have its concession renewed by a State that is serious, a responsible State, and a State committed to its people and to respect for its people, the dignity of its people and the freedoms of its people. The decision is irrevocable”;278 d) On January 8, 2007, during the ceremony to appoint a new Cabinet, President Chávez spoke against about the RCTV concession indicating that: “Nothing and nobody will prevent us complying with the decision not to renew the concession of that television channel, and we all know which one. Nothing and nobody will prevent it,”279 and e) declaration of President Chávez during a speech to the National Assembly on January 13, 2007, in which he stated: “They just have January (a few days), February, March, April, May [2007]. They can yell and stamp their feet all they want, but the concession of that fascist channel, RCTV, is over.”280 b) Analysis of the evidence related to the undeclared purpose 192. To begin with, the Court recalls that these statements by public officials were made in the context of a situation of political polarization (supra paras. 60 and 61). In this regard, and however reprehensible the conduct of the media at that time may have been, 281 the Court recalls, as it has in other cases that occurred in this same context, 282 that in the instant case, in exercise of its contentious jurisdiction as an international human rights court, its function is to determine the responsibility of the State under the American Convention for the alleged violations, and not the responsibility of RCTV or other media, or that of their executives, shareholders or employees, in relation to specific facts or historical events in Venezuela, or their role or performance as a social communication medium. The Court takes no decision on the right of RCTV, as a company, corporation or legal person. Even if it were true that RCTV or equipos’” of December 28, 2006 (evidence file, folio 3136); Article in the newspaper “Globovisión” entitled “Presidente Chávez anuncia que no renovará concesión de RCTV” of December 28, 2006, (evidence file, folio 3138); Article in the newspaper “El Mundo” entitled “Chávez cancela la licencia a una televisión privada que tacha de 'golpista'“ of December 28, 2006, Available at: http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2006/12/28/comunicacion/1167326997.html, and Article in the newspaper “El Universal” entitled “Reporteros Sin Fronteras pide a Gobierno reconsiderar decisión de no renovar concesión a RCTV” of December 29, 2006, Available at: http://www.eluniversal.com/2006/12/29/ pol_ava_29A819703.shtml. 278 Press release of the Ministry of the People’s Power for Communications and Information entitled “Presidente Chávez: decisión sobre RCTV es irrevocable” of January 4, 2007 (evidence file, folio 3157); Press release of “Radio Nacional of Venezuela” entitled “Presidente Chávez: decisión sobre RCTV es irrevocable” of January 4, 2007 (evidence file, folio 3159), and Article in the newspaper “Globovisión” entitled “President Chávez nombró a Jorge Rodríguez como Vice President y a Pedro Carreño como Ministro de Interior and Justicia” of January 3, 2007 (evidence file, folio 3160). Press release of “Radio Nacional of Venezuela” entitled “Nada ni nadie impedirá no renovación en concesión a RCTV” of January 8, 2007 (evidence file, folios 1573 and 1574). 279 Speech by President Chávez on January 13, 2007, note of “Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias” entitled “Presentación del Mensaje anual del Presidente de la República Bolivariana of Venezuela, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, ante la Asamblea Nacional, Palacio Federal Legislativo” of January 13, 2007 (evidence file, folio 3164). 281 In this regard, expert witness Pasquali indicated that “up until 2002, Radio Caracas and almost all the other media committed abuses based on their dominant position; that is, […] from merely providing information they tried to become protagonists of the country’s history; but, neither in Venezuela, nor, I believe, in any other country of Latin America, has any ethically fair democracy considered issuing a list of obligations so that the population knows what to expect. In other words, I think that, finally, RCTV and the others went too far in 2002; it was a morally reprehensible, but could not be dealt with legally because nothing was violated, there were no laws that prohibited them from doing what they did, and the government, I believe, knew this and did not take legal steps against that television station.” Opinion of expert witness Pasquali during the public hearing in this case. 280 282 Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, para. 105, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, para. 74.