65 its employees committed the acts that the State attributes to it, this would not justify the State’s failure to comply with its obligations to respect and ensure human rights. 283 193. That said, in order to analyze the statements mentioned above, it is essential to examine the statements and accusations together because, in isolation, they could not autonomously constitute acts that violate the American Convention. This is because the fact that several officials have made statements of a similar tenor over the same time period reveals that they were not isolated statements. Bearing this in mind, the Court will proceed to assess the content of those statements to determine whether reasons or motives existed as to why the said decision was reached that differed from the declared purpose because, as already indicated, for the legal analysis of the case it is relevant to take into account the motive or intention, especially when seeking to determine whether an arbitrary action or a misuse of power has been constituted (supra para. 189). First, the Court underlines that, starting in 2002, indications were given that television channels that did not modify their editorial line would not have their concessions renewed (supra para. 75) and that statements of this type increased as the date on which the concessions expired grew nearer (supra paras. 76 to 78). In 2006, in several statements made prior to Communication No. 0424 and Resolution No. 002, it was announced that the decision not to renew the RCTV concession had already been taken and would not be re-evaluated or amended (supra para. 79 to 86). Furthermore, it is worth emphasizing that, not only were statements made by State officials in diverse media, but also in national newspapers and even in a book in order to announce and justify the decision not to renew the RCTV concession. Consequently, the Court is able to conclude, first, that the decision was taken a long time before the concession expired and that the order was given to CONATEL and the Ministry of Telecommunications by the Executive. 194. Regarding the real reasons behind the decision, according to the statements and the publications made by different members of the Venezuelan Government, these were: (i) that RCTV had not modified its editorial line following the 2002 coup despite the warnings issued since then, and (ii) the alleged improper actions of RCTV, which had resulted in sanctions. In the case of the first reason, the Court finds it essential to state that it is not possible to restrict the right to freedom of expression based on the government’s political disagreement with a certain editorial line. As indicated previously, the right to freedom of expression must not only be guaranteed with regard to the dissemination of information and ideas that are received favorably or considered inoffensive or indifferent, but rather and particularly, as regards those that are disagreeable for the State or any sector of the population (supra para. 140). In the case of RCTV’s improper actions that had resulted in sanctions, the Court stresses that it is contradictory that comments and accusations were made in relation to the alleged sanctions and that Communication No. 0424 indicated expressly that these were not the justification for the decision. In particular, the Court underscores that, despite the seriousness of the events related to the coup d’état, it has not been proved before this Court that, at the domestic level, proceedings were undertaken to sanction the said improper actions. Accordingly, it is not possible to use what happened during the coup as an argument to substantiate the decision, when those actions were not penalized at the time. 195. On this point, the Court considers it necessary to reiterate the precedent established in another case concerning this same media outlet, according to which in a democratic society it is not only legitimate but also, at times, constitutes a duty of the State authorities, to rule on matters of public interest. However, by doing so, they are subject to certain limitations because they must verify reasonably, although not necessarily exhaustively, the facts on which they Cf. Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, para. 74; Mutatis mutandis, ECHR, Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, (No. 23144/93), Judgment of March 16, 2000, para. 45. 283