52 222 disagreeable, or upset the State or any sector of the population. That is what pluralism, tolerance, and 223 a spirit of openness entail, and without these a democratic society cannot exist. If, on the contrary, the owners or staff of RCTV in fact violated Venezuelan law, the State was obliged to show that through a judicial ruling stemming from a proceeding under due process. In this case, on the contrary, there is no evidence of any punishment of persons associated with RCTV for actions that could constitute a threat to the country’s democratic stability. In this sense, the Commission finds that, while the protection and preservation of democracy constitutes, in the abstract, a social imperative, in this case there is no evidence that the differential treatment of RCTV was connected with the aim publicly invoked by the State. Therefore, the IACHR finds that the differential treatment to which RCTV was subjected was discriminatory and arbitrary, in violation of Articles 1.1 and 24 of the Convention. 165. On the basis of the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the nonrenewal of RCTV’s franchise under the circumstances described constituted an indirect curtailment of 224 the freedom of expression of the aforementioned shareholders, directors, and staff of RCTV, in violation of Articles 13.1 and 13.3 of the Convention, as regards Article 1.1 of the same instrument. Because this curtailment arose from a decision based on the channel’s political opinion, it also violated the right of equality before the law, enshrined in Article 24 of the Convention, as regards Article 1.1, to the detriment of the same victims. 166. With respect to Article 2 of the Convention, the petitioners alleged the violation of that article, but did not identify what specific aspects of Venezuelan domestic law violated the Convention, or why. The Commission finds, in this instance, that the petitioners have not presented sufficient evidence to enable the IACHR to examine a possible violation of Article 2; therefore it does not find that a violation of that article occurred in this case. B. Article 21 (Right to Property) taken in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 167. The pertinent part of Article 21 of the American Convention reads as follows: 1. Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society. 2. No one shall be deprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and in the cases and according to the forms established by law. 168. The first paragraph of Article 21 of the American Convention recognizes the right to private property, including its use and enjoyment. It also adds a limitation on that right by providing that 222 I.A. Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C, No. 107, para. 113; I.A. Court H.R., Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C, No. 73, para. 69; I.A. Court H.R., Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C, No. 194, para.105; I.A. Court H.R., Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C, No. 195, para. 116; IACHR. 1994 Annual Report. Chapter V: Report on the Compatibility of “Desacato” Laws with the American Convention on Human Rights. Title III. OEA/Ser. L/V/II.88. doc. 9 rev. February 17, 1995. 223 I.A. Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C, No. 107, para. 113; I.A. Court H.R., Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C, No. 73, para. 69; I.A. Court H.R., Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C, No. 194, para. 105; I.A. Court H.R., Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C, No. 195, para. 116; IACHR. 1994 Annual Report. Chapter V: Report on the Compatibility of “Desacato” Laws with the American Convention on Human Rights. Title III. OEA/Ser. L/V/II.88. doc. 9 rev. February 17, 1995. 224 Marcel Granier, Peter Bottome, Jaime Nestares, Edgardo Mosca, Anani Hernández, Inés Bacalao, José Simón Escalona, Odila Rubin, Oswaldo Quintana, Eduardo Sapene, Eladio Lárez, Daniela Bergami, Isabel Valero, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, Soraya Castellano, María Arriaga, and Larissa Patiño.