72 political opinions in this and, based on those opinions, define the content of its programming. In this regard, the Court emphasizes the statement made by Soraya Castellano, Information Manager of the RCTV Vice-Presidency for Information, that “[the] tone or ranking [of the news] was submitted to discussion and approval by the Department for the Production of Newscasts, the Information Directorate, and the Vice-Presidency for Information […]. [This] working group approved the guidelines for the leading program ‘El Observador.’”295 226. On this point, the Court emphasizes the need to protect the expression of political opinions in a democratic society and recalls that it has previously established that “[d]emocratic control exercised by society through political opinion encourages the transparency of State activities and promotes the accountability of public officials in public administration.”296 Thus, this Court reaffirms the importance of the prohibition of discrimination based on the political opinions of an individual or a group of individuals, and the consequent obligation of the States to respect and ensure the rights contained in the American Convention without any type of discrimination. 227. Based on the above, the Court concludes that it may be affirmed that the editorial line of a television channel is the reflection of the ideas of those involved in the design of this line; therefore, they may be subject to discriminatory treatment based on their political opinions. Having established this, the Court will now examine the inversion of the burden of proof derived from the presumption of the existence of discriminatory treatment based on a prohibited type of discrimination established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, in this case, the political opinions of the RCTV executives and employees. 2.2. Inversion of the burden of proof and evidence presented by the State concerning the differential treatment 228. The Court stresses that, regarding the prohibition of discrimination based on one of the protected categories established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, the possible restriction of a right requires a rigorous and substantial justification and also the burden of proof is inverted, which means that it is for the authority to prove that its decision did not have a discriminatory purpose or effect.297 In this case, having verified that the differential treatment towards RCTV was based on one of the prohibited categories, the State had the obligation to prove that the decision to reserve the spectrum to itself did not have a discriminatory purpose or effect. 229. The Court has verified that, in Communication No. 0424, Minister Chacón Escamillo merely indicated that the decision not to renew the concession was not a sanction but rather the legal effect established in article 1 of Decree 1,577; namely, the expiry of a time frame (supra, para. 90) and that the State “had decided to reserve to itself the use and exploitation of that portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.” The Court notes that the State did not give the reasons for its decision or indicate, in either Communication No. 0424 or Resolution No. 002, why it reserved to itself the use of the electromagnetic spectrum assigned to RCTV and not the portion of the spectrum used by other channels. 230. Meanwhile, the State has argued in this case that the decision to reserve to itself the portion of the spectrum assigned to RCTV and not that used by another channel was because RCTV had specific technical characteristics that would reduce costs and expand the transmission range. However, the Court notes that this explanation was not indicated in either 295 Affidavit of Soraya Castellano (merits file, folio 1554). Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, para. 127, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 145. 296 297 Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, para. 124.