2 to the Court, the criteria for inclusion on the list of victims of the indirect restriction of the right to freedom of expression was the “real impact on the communications mission of the company.”7 Based on the total number of violations declared by the Court, the list of victims is variable: the 7 indirect shareholders in relation to the right to due process in the proceedings on the transformation of the titles and renewal of the concession 8 and the right to a hearing and a reasonable time in the processing of the action on joint and separate interests;9 11 in relation to the indirect restriction of the exercise of the right to freedom of expression10 and the obligation of non-discrimination,11 and 19 with regard to the right to a reasonable time in the administrative proceedings for annulment 12 and the right to a reasonable time in the processing of the unspecified interim measure in the context of the administrative proceedings for annulment.13 5. Also, the fifteenth and sixteenth operative paragraphs bear no relationship to any of the paragraphs declaring violations, and consider that the legal person, RCTV, is a victim, and substantially, its seven indirect shareholders. 6. Thus, from a subjective perspective, 168 journalists, employees and executives who were included in the original petition have been omitted from the protection of the judgment, and 176 of these from the protection of freedom of expression. The beneficiaries of the findings and reparations in relation to the most important aspects are the seven shareholders. The other individuals who have been considered victims on some points, citing their supposed capacity as employees, in reality were part of another category because they were senior executive personnel. Objective aspect 7. The reduction of the number of people involved in the proceedings before to Court to seven individuals – the shareholders – also explains why, from an objective point of view, the claims that were asserted and the results finally obtained were related not to the individual and social values associated with freedom of expression, but rather to the RCTV company and its owners. Several points illustrate this assertion. 8. First, the shareholders did not assign priority to the possible concession of another channel that would have allowed them to continue operating. Indeed, paragraph 209 notes that the representatives indicated that “there were other free and available frequencies on the radioelectric spectrum.” Their arguments reveal that they were more interested in underlining that there were also “the frequencies of another television station in the same legal, technical and commercial conditions as RCTV, so that there was no reason that justified why it had to be precisely the RCTV frequencies that had to be used to permit the alleged democratization of the media.” But, if there were other “free and available” frequencies, and if they wanted to defend freedom of expression, the most logical and natural reasoning would be that RCTV should have requested one of these frequencies. 9. The judgment also refers to the State’s assertion (which was not contradicted by the 7 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, paras. 153 and 158 to 160. 8 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, operative para. 5. 9 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, operative para. 8. 10 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, operative para. 3. 11 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, operative para. 4. 12 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, operative para. 6. 13 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, operative para. 7.