communities to transmit their culture to future generations. They also pointed out that community radio stations enable indigenous peoples to preserve their cultural heritage, using their native languages, sharing their worldview, transmitting historical events and their music, so that they are a vehicle for the practice, preservation and transmission of culture. 70. The representatives emphasized that, by allowing indigenous peoples to receive, in their own indigenous languages, diverse information and opinions on economic, social and political topics, community radio provides the most effective and economical means for community members to keep themselves informed, “considering their modest incomes and limited access to other media and technologies,” and to receive information in cases of emergency such as natural disasters. 71. The State argued that it is not responsible for the alleged violations, since it has acted in accordance with its domestic legal framework and has respected the rights enshrined in the American Convention as well as its international commitments. It asserted that the freedoms of expression, thought, opinion and information are fully guaranteed in Guatemala by different domestic laws, which are in line with the provisions of Article 13 of the Convention. 72. It also explained that the regulation of radio frequencies is carried out exclusively by the State, which not only allows it to determine the manner in which licenses for the use of radio frequencies are granted, but also to plan and implement public policies on this activity. It indicated that the criterion for granting usufruct of the broadcasting network cannot be construed as a restriction to freedom of expression, since it is embodied in a law that was established prior to the facts and which is clear and precise. The State explained that the regulation of broadcasting in Guatemala is intended to ensure predictability and legal certainty for users and usufructuaries of the radio spectrum, so as to guarantee the full exercise of their rights to freedom of expression in a safe and objective manner. It added that the LGT complies with the standards established by the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission, insofar as it is clear and precise; it contemplates transparent procedures that respect due process; it grants licenses to use frequencies for sufficient time to develop the communications project or to recover the investment and achieve profitability; it ensures that while the frequency is being used, no requirements other than those established by law are demanded; and it does not allow decisions to be made that affect the exercise of freedom of expression due to editorial or informative policies. 73. In addition, the State emphasized that there is no monopoly of radio frequencies in Guatemala, a situation reflected in the 514 usufruct titles for radio frequencies related to radio broadcasting legally granted to different individuals and legal entities. 74. The State argued that, in order to guarantee legal certainty and security to those who own or acquire the usufruct of a radio frequency through due process, in compliance with preestablished requisites and criteria, it is necessary that the body responsible for ensuring compliance with the law and for prosecuting offenses make every possible effort to prevent the illegal use of broadcasting media. It considered that, if such criminal prosecution were not carried out, it would lead to a “situation of mistrust, lack of legal certainty and impunity.” Thus, it mentioned that the Public Prosecutor’s Office “does not make any distinction as to the criteria of the group or social sector to which the persons belong, since it is not concerned with the offender but rather with the criminal act. Nor is its action influenced by the content of the programs broadcast. It indicated that the reported raids on the radio stations are within the law and in strict compliance with national regulations and the observance of the judicial guarantees of the defendants. It explained that the legislation specifies the crimes and the penalties to be imposed for the illegal use of radio frequencies and the respective criminal proceeding is independent of any decision taken by the corresponding administrative authority. -22-