positions of authority –including that of the station’s general director and its vice chairmen-, executives were said to have taken basic decisions about the media outlet’s take on the news and its editorial line. Furthermore, through the Shareholders’ General Assembly and, in particular, the Board of Directors, the station’s shareholders would have been instrumental in shaping its editorial line. The Commission observes that these people may have been using RCTV to express or circulate their ideas or opinions. In the merits phase, the Commission will have to examine the role that each alleged victim had in the station’s editorial line; whether their right to freedom of expression was somehow affected; and whether the restriction was in compliance with the requirements of Article 13(2) of the Convention. 43. If the claim that the decisions not to renew the concession and to give CONATEL the right to use RCTV’s broadcasting equipment were abuses of authority, motivated by officials’ rejection of the opinions and ideas that the alleged victims aired by way of that media outlet or were taken for the purpose of silencing those ideas and opinions, thus controlling the content of the news being broadcast, this may constitute a violation of articles 13 and 24 of the American Convention, under Article 30 of that instrument, which upholds the principle of neutrality. Another issue that would have to be examined in the merits phase is whether handing the use of RCTV’s broadcasting equipment over to the State was an arbitrary measure or indirect punishment for the media outlet’s editorial line, which may constitute a violation of the right to private property, recognized in article 21 of the American Convention, in addition to the violation of those rights provided in articles 13 and 24. Finally, the problems that supposedly characterized the administrative and judicial proceedings conducted in connection with the present case may constitute violations of articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. All these violations would also constitute noncompliance with the general obligations the State undertook in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. V. CONCLUSION 44. The Inter-American Commission concludes that it is competent to examine the merits of this case and that the petition is admissible under articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. Based on the arguments of fact and of law set forth above and without prejudging the merits of this matter, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare the present petition admissible with respect to the alleged violations of the rights protected in articles 8, 13, 21, 24 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the general obligations undertaken in articles 1(1) and 2 thereof; 2. To notify the parties of this decision and proceed to its analysis of the merits of this matter; and 3. To publish this decision and include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. Done and signed in the city of Washington, D.C., on the 22nd day of July 2011. (Signed): Dinah Shelton, President; José de Jesús Orozco Henríquez, First Vice-President; Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Felipe González, and María Silvia Guillén, Commissioners. 10