75 concession would be taken by an independent and impartial body[; and the Minister of the People’s Power for Telecommunications and Information Technology,] the body that took the decision, did not offer the guarantee of independence and impartiality in this particular matter required by Article 8 of the Convention.” According to the representatives, the Minister had “expressed his opinion previously on the merits of RCTV’s request […] in relation to the duration and extension of its concession.” They also argued that the Minister was a “direct organ for the execution of the decisions of the President of the Republic” who, they indicated, “had publicly and repeatedly announced his decision not to renew the RCTV concession and […] openly confessed his enmity towards the said media outlet, as a result of the conflict between its critical editorial line and the interests of his political project.” They also argued that in his Communication No.0424, the Minister had “refused to admit and examine the evidence submitted by RCTV,” violating the rights to defense and to due process. 241. The representatives argued that Communication No. 0424 and Resolution No.002, were not duly reasoned because they “did not analyze basic and fundamental aspects, such as the content of and the effects on the right to freedom of expression; the reason why the option of creating a new public television station in substitution for RCTV was essential, [and] they also failed to analyze other possible frequencies available to the government, among other aspects that should have been evaluated to avoid arbitrariness.” They also argued that “the RCTV representatives were not allowed to access the file of the administrative case in the procedure prior to the adoption of the decisions contained in Resolution No. 002 and Communication No. 0424” and therefore argued that the public nature of due process and the right of defense was violated by preventing the presumed victims from verifying and monitoring their content; denying them the possibility of “providing additional evidence in their defense in relation to the new supervening arguments set out by the Minister.” 242. The State argued that Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention had not been violated. In addition, it indicated that the decision not to renew the RCTV concession was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. According to the State, “it is [its] prerogative […] to renew or use [the administration of the electromagnetic spectrum], and the undisputed holder of this right does not have to open any new procedure in order to exercise it. Therefore, it decreed the extinction of the concession request made by RCTV.” A.1.2. Considerations of the Court 243. The Court recalls that Article 8(1) of the Convention guarantees that decisions determining the rights of the individual must be adopted by the competent authorities established by domestic law,300 and using the procedure established to that end. In this case, the decision to reserve to the State the use of the spectrum initially assigned to RCTV meant that the administrative procedures for transformation of the titles and renewal of the concession were not implemented, and this had an impact on the determination of the rights of the executives and employees of RCTV, because the result of this decision was the non-renewal of RCTV’s concession to operate as a free-to-air television station, and this had an impact on the exercise of their right to freedom of expression (supra para. 199). Consequently, in this case, the judicial guarantees established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention are applicable. 244. In this regard, this Court has already indicated that the procedures related to the renewal or granting of licenses or concessions must comply with certain general safeguards or guarantees to avoid an abuse of official controls or the generation of indirect restrictions (supra para. 171). In this context, the Court finds it pertinent to indicate that the European Court, Cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, para. 158, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, para. 171. 300