71 Andina de Mérida and Amavisión. The Court considers that, although some of these television stations shared common characteristics with RCTV, they were also different as regards audience, type of frequencies, and other distinguishing characteristics. Therefore, the Court does not find that this case meets the requirements to make a determination on equality as proposed by the Commission and the representatives. Nevertheless, the Court notes that the licenses of all these channels, with the exception of RCTV, were renewed and will therefore examine whether the State’s decision to reserve to itself the use of the spectrum initially assigned to RCTV rather than that of another channel may have resulted in discriminatory treatment in the exercise of RCTV’s right to freedom of expression. 2. Application of a type of discrimination prohibited by Article 1(1) of the Convention 2.1. RCTV’s editorial line as an expression of the “political opinions” of its executives and employees 222. The Court will now assess the reason for the possible differential treatment and the alleged application of a type of discrimination prohibited by Article 1(1) of the Convention. In this regard, it takes note of the Commission’s argument in relation to the existence of a reasonable indication that the differential treatment towards RCTV was based on a prohibited type of discrimination contained in Article 1(1); namely, the political opinions expressed by RCTV executives and employees. 223. In this regard, the Court recalls that Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes that “[t]he States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.” Consequently, the Court will analyze whether the editorial line of a television channel falls within the category of “political opinion” set forth in Article 1(1) of the Convention. Subsequently, it will assess whether there is evidence that would allow it to be considered that the application of this prohibited type of discrimination was the reason for the differential treatment. 224. First, the Court underscores that, in the case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, it established that “it [was] possible that individuals linked to RCTV could be included in the category of “political opinion” included in Article 1(1) of the Convention and be discriminated against in certain situations. Therefore, the alleged discriminations de facto must be analyzed under the general obligation of non-discrimination included in Article 1(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 13(1) thereof.”294 Accordingly, the Court considers that the editorial line of a television channel may be considered a reflection of the political opinions of its executives and employees insofar as they are involved in and determine the content of the information transmitted. Thus, it can be understood that the critical stance taken by a channel is a reflection of the critical position of its executives and employees involved in deciding the type of information transmitted. This is because, as already indicated (supra para. 148), the media are frequently the mechanisms by which individuals exercise their right to freedom of expression, which may involve the expression of contents such as political opinions or positions. 225. In particular, the Court notes that the editorial line and content of a television channel is not created accidentally, but is the result of decisions and actions taken by specific individuals linked to the definition of this editorial line. It is reasonable to assume that these individuals, who have a direct relationship to the definition of the channel’s editorial line, reflect their 294 Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, para. 349.