95 an arbitrary procedure. They also argued that the elimination of the right to property, even for reasons of public utility or social interest, when just compensation is not paid, is an unlawful deprivation of property that violates Article 21 of the Convention. The representatives argued that the seizure of the equipment was carried out without previously declaring that it was of public utility, without respecting the expropriation procedure established by the laws of Venezuela, and without paying compensation. They added that the arbitrary seizure by the Supreme Court of Justice was a confiscation under the appearance of an interim measure, an appearance that was irrelevant to change the confiscatory nature of the act, and RCTV was deprived of those assets in open violation of Article 21(2) of the Convention. 330. The representatives indicated that a broad application of the right to property would result in an interpretation that it included the shareholder’s legal title to assets. They added that Article 1(2) of the Convention established that, for the purpose of the protection system established by the Convention, “‘person’ means every human being.” However, they argued that Article 1(2) only excluded legal persons from the sphere of the Convention. They alleged that companies were excluded, but not the partners and that this distinction was of crucial importance because a legal person also served as a vehicle to implement activities that were the exercise of human rights guaranteed by the Convention. Additionally, the representatives argued that the shares in a commercial company are property and enjoy the protection of Article 21 of the Convention. The representatives explained that when they cited Article 21 of the Convention to denounce its violation, they were not referring to the rights of the shareholder who plays an active role in the activities of the company, but rather they were referring to the harm suffered by shareholders’ property, particularly the value of the shares, owing to “the arbitrary actions taken by the State in order to close down RCTV, including the arbitrary nonrenewal, and the asset seizure, which resulted in the destruction of the economic value of their property.” The foregoing was because the elimination of the company’s assets resulted in the destruction of the shares as titles that represented a specific value. 331. The representatives also emphasized that RCTV was a closed family company and that the shareholders represented all the partners, who together represented the whole ownership of the media outlet, so that the non-pecuniary interests and the pecuniary interests of the partners merged with the non-pecuniary interests and the pecuniary interests of the legal person of the media outlet. 332. The State shared the Inter-American Commission’s opinion when it concluded that “the petitioners ha[d] not provided sufficient evidence of the direct effect on the personal property of the shareholders presented as victims as a result of the State’s seizure of RCTV’s tangible assets.” Consequently, the State concluded that it was excused from providing compensation for harm to the patrimony of the RCTV shareholders and that it owed nothing in relation to the interim measures that awarded the property that belonged to RCTV. 333. The State indicated that the Commission had concluded that it was not possible to determine that RCTV had an acquired right to the automatic renewal of its concession. It argued that the Venezuelan State was responsible for the administration of the electromagnetic spectrum and that it was its prerogative to renew the concession or to use it itself because, since it owned the right, it was not obliged to open a new procedure Considerations of the Court 334. The Court takes note that the Commission did not find any violation of the right to property established Article 21 of the Convention, while the representatives argued that this right had been violated. The Court reiterates that “the presumed victims or their representatives may invoke rights other than those cited by the Commission, based on the