41 114. On December 11, 2007, RCTV filed a criminal complaint with the Superior Prosecutor of the Judicial District of the Caracas Metropolitan Area, requesting that a criminal investigation be launched into offenses against property and other offenses established in the Anti-corruption Law.176 In the complaint, RCTV alleged that, under the interim measures ordered in the actions on joint and separate interests (Cases Nos. 07-0720 and 07-0731), the Constitutional Chamber had deprived RCTV of its right to property and possession of assets. The station had been left completely defenseless because the court of last resort under the Venezuelan judicial system had indefinitely restricted its use, enjoyment and disposition of its own property, as a result of a major procedural fraud, which was a blatant violation of fundamental rights. In its complaint, RCTV argued that, by distorting the purposes of the interim measures requested by the aggrieved parties, the Constitutional Chamber had misapplied the law, with the result that RCTV’s assets had been seized and handed over to the new operators of the free-to-air signal. In RCTV’s view, the court had “committed an ‘autonomous procedural fraud’ detrimental to [its] rights and interests. This was an intentional fraud, inasmuch as the Constitutional Court’s own case law on the subject of procedural fraud condemns the conduct of judges who, through procedure and other devices, inflict harm that always involves violations of fundamental rights.” In its complaint, RCTV asked not only that an investigation be launched, but also that the condition of the physical installations, equipment and other assets assigned to the State be verified by judicial inspections. 115. On December 28, 2007, the 36th Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service with nationwide jurisdiction, in charge of the complaint, asked the court of oversight to order the case dismissed, alleging that the facts that prompted the filing of the complaint were not criminal offenses. On July 28, 2008, the 51st Criminal Trial Court of the Caracas Area admitted the request for dismissal filed by the Prosecutor, and decided to close the investigation. 177 On August 7, 2008, RCTV filed an appeal against this latest court ruling.178 116. On October 10, 2008, the Fifth Chamber of the Appellate Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area ratified the reasons given by the Prosecutor in his request to have the case dismissed, and declared that the appeal filed by RCTV was inadmissible.179 RCTV filed a remedy of cassation contesting that decision with the SCJ Criminal Cassation Chamber but, on May 7, 2009, this was dismissed also.180 VII. RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND TO EQUALITY A) Alleged violation of freedom of expression A.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 117. The Commission argued that “[t]he allocation of radio and television licenses is a decision with a definite impact on the right to freedom of expression in both its dimensions: the right of everyone to express themselves freely and the right to receive a diversity of ideas Cf. Complaint alleging procedural fraud filed with the Superior Prosecutor of the Judicial District of the Caracas Metropolitan Area on December 11, 2007 (evidence file, folios 3721 to 3769). 177 Cf. Decision of the 51st Criminal Trial Court of the Caracas Area in Case C-51-S-370-08 (evidence file, folios 25587 to 25603). 178 Cf. Appeal filed with the 51st Criminal Trial Court of the Caracas Metropolitan Area, Case No. 370-08 of August 7, 2008 (evidence file, folios 3771 to 3785). 179 Cf. Decision No. 265-08 of October 10, 2008, of the 51st Criminal Trial Court of this Criminal Judicial District (evidence file, folios 25739 to 25792). 180 Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Cassation Chamber, Case No. C09-005, Decision No. 195 of May 7, 2009 (evidence file, folios 26021 to 26037). Justice Blanca Rosa Mármol de León presented her dissenting opinion on that date (evidence file, folios 26039 TO 26045). 176