68 discriminatory; thus, ‘discrimination was evident if a difference in treatment did not have a legitimate reason; in other words, if it led to situations that were contrary to justice, reason or the nature of things’; and the Court had stressed that the States must refrain from executing actions that, in any way, are addressed, directly or indirectly, at creating situations of discrimination de jure or de facto.” 206. Second, regarding the factual and legal similarity with Venevisión, the representatives argued that “[i]n this case, the RCTV and Venevisión television stations not only had a similar coverage in geographical terms, but their audience share was almost the same, and they had an identical legal situation as regards the period for which their concessions were in effect.” Regarding this similarity with Venevisión, they asserted that “among the stations with national coverage, it was always evident that the leadership was disputed by two television stations: RCTV and Venevisión. Thus, for example, in 2006 (the year before the closure of RCTV), the distribution of the audience share was as follows: (i) RCTV 28%; (ii) Venevisión 27%; (iii) Televen 12%; (iv) VTV 8%; (iv) Globovisión 4%, and (v) Meridiano TV 3%.” 207. They also argued the existence of the following common characteristics: “(i) they were both private free-to-air television stations; (ii) they operated on VHF; (iii) they covered almost all national territory; (iv) they were leaders in audience share, and their share percentages had been almost identical during the previous year, and (v) their concessions – according to the State – expired on May 27, 2007. Consequently, it is absurd to think that the decision to renew the Venevisión concession and not to renew RCTV’s concession was based on technical reasons such as the possibility of a supposed better coverage by the frequencies corresponding to RCTV. This possibility not only was never included in the State’s administrative acts and thus is a supervening motive and, therefore, legally inadmissible; but also it was never proved under domestic law or in the procedure before the IACHR or before this Court.” 208. Likewise, the representatives argued that “the only difference between these two media outlets was Venevisión’s change in its editorial line, leaving RCTV as the only dissenting voice”; hence they considered it “evident that RCTV’s concession was not renewed in reprisal for its editorial line and the content of its news and opinion programs.” 209. The representatives also indicated that “not only were other frequencies free and available on the radioelectric spectrum, but 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.” They concluded that, “[i]n this case, it is clear that, although they were legally in the same situation, the Venezuelan Government gave a different treatment to the request for renewal or extension of the RCTV concession than it gave to the request for renewal or extension of the Venevisión concession. That said, given that the reason for this differential treatment has no objective and reasonable justification (in any case, it was an illegitimate reprisal for the critical editorial line of RCTV), it is obvious that the said treatment was discriminatory and, consequently, violated the obligations imposed on the Venezuelan State by Article 24 of the American Convention.” 210. The State argued that Article 24 of the Convention had not been violated because “all the companies in which Marcel Granier, Peter Bottome and Jaime Nestares are still shareholders, and which the State has specifically indicated, continue operating imparting their points of view and commercializing their products in Venezuelan territory with no restriction.” 211. The State considered that what had happened was “the simple termination of a concession that the State decided not to renew under its discretionary powers for the administration of public property, as is the case of the electromagnetic spectrum.” It asserted