39 124. From a substantive perspective, the Commission recalls that article 1.1 of the American Convention prohibits any discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights enshrined therein based on, inter alia, “political or other opinion”. In addition, the Inter-American Commission and Court have consistently held that speech on matters of public interest enjoys heightened protection under article 13 of the 150 151 Convention . Nonetheless, freedom of expression is not absolute, and in rare circumstances such as those contemplated in article 13.5 of the Convention, restrictions may be deemed permissible even if the 152 speech in question is political in nature. 153 154 125. In addition, the jurisprudence of the IACHR, the Inter-American Court, and the 155 European Court of Human Rights demonstrates that once an interference with the right to freedom of expression has been established, it is the State which carries the burden of proving that this interference was permissible, that is, that the restriction on freedom of expression was established by law and 156 necessary to ensure a legitimate objective . As explained below (see paragraphs 156 and 164, infra), in the instant case, the State did not avail itself of the opportunity to establish that the restriction met the aforementioned criteria. 126. In sum, the granting of radio and television broadcast frequencies with the objective of putting pressure on and punishing or rewarding and providing privileges to social communicators and media outlets because of the information they provide constitutes an indirect restriction of freedom of expression as prohibited by Article 13(3) of the American Convention. It also has the effect of silencing other media outlets, which severely impacts the social dimension of freedom of expression. 2. On the relationship between a media outlet and its shareholders, directors, and journalists 150 I/A Court H. R., Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135. para. 83; I/A Court H. R., Case of Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107. para. 125; I/A Court H.R., Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74. para. 155; IACHR, Annual Report 1994. OEA/Ser.L/V.88. Doc. 9 rev. 1. February 17, 1995. Chapter V; IACHR, Arguments before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, cited in I/A Court H. R., Case of Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107. para. 101.2).c). 151 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, para. 54; Case of Fontevecchia y D`Amico v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2011. Series C No. 238, para. 43. 152 Citing international doctrine and jurisprudence, the IACHR has stated that sanctions for incitement to violence are appropriate when “actual, truthful, objective and strong proof” demonstrates “the clear intention of committing a crime and the actual, real and effective possibility of achieving this objective.” IACHR, Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. “The InterAmerican Legal Framework regarding the Right to Freedom of Expression.” OEA/Ser.L/V/II IACHR/RELE/INF. 2/09. December 30, 2009, para. 58. Available at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/docs/publications/INTERAMERICAN%20LEGAL%20FRAMEWORK%20OF%20THE%20RIGHT%20TO%20FREEDOM%20OF%20EXPRESSION%20FINA L%20PORTADA.pdf. Regarding the distinction between protected political speech and incitement to violence, see also ECHR, Case of Incal v. Turkey, Application No. 22678/93, Judgment of June 9, 1998; Case of Sürek y Özdemir v. Turkey, Judgment of July 8, 1999, Application No. 23927/94, 24277/94; Case of Arslan v. Turkey, Judgment of July 8, 1999, Application No. 23462/94. 153 See, e.g., IACHR. Report No. 82/10. Case No. 12.524. Jorge Fontevecchia and Héctor D’Amico (Argentina). July 13, 2010, paras. 112-172. 154 See, e.g., I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, paras. 95-108; Case of Fontevecchia y D`Amico v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2011. Series C No. 238, paras. 51-75. 155 ECHR, Case of Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania, Application no. 33348/96, Judgment of December 17, 2004, paras. 85-89; Case of Ukrainian Media Group v. Ukraine, Application no. 72713/01, Judgment of December 10, 2005, paras. 44-62; Case of Otegi Mondragón v. Spain, Application 2034/07, Judgment of March 15, 2011, paras. 28-39. 156 American Convention, art. 13.2.