12 57. Communication No. 0424 indicates that RCTV does not have an ‘acquired’ right to the automatic renewal of the concession of the use and exploitation of the broadcast spectrum because: (1) the right to automatic renewal of concessions of this type of service is established neither in the Constitution nor by law; (2) concessions are privileges granted for limited periods of time, pursuant to Article 113 of the Constitution and Article 73 of the LOTEL; (3) a general legal principle is that privileges are to be interpreted restrictively; and (4) automatic renewal would put at risk the plurality of use of the broadcast spectrum and the broadcast spectrum's status as public property of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. 58. Communication 0424 cited by the State holds that the broadcast spectrum is public State property whose use and exploitation require the corresponding concession, and because what is at issue is the exploitation of natural resources that are the property of the Nation, the State shall grant concessions for a specific period of time, always ensuring the existence of considerations or counterparts that are adequate to the public interest. In this sense, it considers that the concept of "automatic renewal or extension" of a public concession is clearly contrary to the status of the broadcast spectrum as public property and the time limits that the Constitution establishes for public concessions, and would make them nugatory. 59. With regard to the non-renovation of the RCTV concession, Communication 0424 cited by the State holds that although Article 73 and 210 (4) of the LOTEL establish the possibility of renewing any concession of the use of the broadcast spectrum, this constitutes an optional authority, not an obligation for the State. It alleges that the State, as owner of the property, can always reserve the use and exploitation of it for itself, as it has in this case. It indicates that in compliance with Article 108 of the Constitution, as part of the definition and implementation of new public policies for the telecommunications sector put forth in the National Telecommunications Plan, it decided to promote a new model for managing free-to-air television under the scheme of public service television, in order to permit the democratization of the use of over-air broadcast media and a plurality of messages and content. It indicates that this required a frequency that would allow it to have a free-to-air television network with national scope, like the one that became available upon the expiration of RCTV's concession. 60. Communication 0424 indicates that RCTV brought requests for two reports to be submitted as evidence in its request for renewal. The first was a request to the "Ministry of Infrastructure" for a certified copy of all free to air television and radio broadcasting titles that have been transformed under Article 210 of the LOTEL in order to prove that "(…) the Ministry of Infrastructure failed to fulfill the obligations established in Article 210 of the LOTEL.” This evidentiary measure was ruled inadmissible because it was attempting to prove a fact that had not been contested. It explains that the fact that RCTV's concession has not been transformed is a fact that does not require any evidence given that it has not been contested. 61. According to Communication 0424 cited by the State, the second evidentiary request sought for CONATEL to provide a certified copy of all requests for the transformation of free-to-air television and radio broadcasting titles, and a certified copy of all penalties applied to free-to-air television and radio stations for violations of LOTEL and the Radio and Television Responsibility Act. It was sought in order to demonstrate that the refusal to transform RCTV’s titles or to extend or renew its concession had the status of a penalty or would be the result of the application of the penalty. The State argues that this argument was not valid given that the case addresses the expiration of the period of validity of the RCTV concession due to the passage of time. 5. Pleadings on the rights alleged to have been violated by the State 62. The State indicates that on April 17, 2007, a group of RCTV executives sought a constitutional writ of nullification before the Contentious Administrative Court against Resolution No. 002 and Communication No. 0424, together with an injunction. It indicates that the remedy was admitted but the injunction was not. It indicates that the Court ruled on the alleged violation of the right to freedom of expression by the State against the executives, employees and journalists of RCTV, finding that, "the