97 concerning: (i) the non-renewal of the RCTV concession for the use of the electromagnetic spectrum; (ii) the interim measures imposed by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on RCTV’s assets, and (iii) the possible effects on the value of the shares owned by the RCTV partners. 1. The non-renewal of the RCTV concession for the use of the electromagnetic spectrum 340. When examining the violation of the right to freedom of expression, the Court established that States have the authority to regulate broadcasting activities, including by defining the way in which concessions are granted or renewed (supra para. 165). Furthermore, regarding Venezuela’s domestic laws, the Court notes that the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela establishes that “the full sovereignty of the Republic is exercised on the continental and insular spaces, over lakes and rivers, inland seas, historic, vital and inland marine areas and those lying within such straight baselines as have been adopted or may come to be adopted by the Republic; the soil and subsoil of these areas; the continental, insular and maritime airspace, and the resources located within the aforementioned spaces, including genetic resources, migratory species, derived products and intangible components that may be present within the aforementioned spaces due to natural causes.”358 Thus, to the extent that the electromagnetic spectrum is part of the airspace resources, the State also exercises full sovereignty over this.359 341. Similarly, the Organic Communications Law establishes that this resource is a public commodity that is the property of the Republic, and its use and exploitation require the respective legal concession.360 In this regard, witness Suárez stated that “owing to the legal nature of the electromagnetic spectrum as a public commodity, […] it cannot be transferred, is inalienable, and cannot be divested. It could not be established or considered that there is an automatic renewal of this type of commodity.”361 Additionally, expert witness Romero Graterol explained that “it has been recognized that the radioelectric spectrum […] is a scarce and limited resource because it is essential for the operations of networks […], especially broadcasting services.”362 342. Bearing this in mind, the Court notes that the electromagnetic spectrum is a public commodity within the State’s domain and, therefore, its ownership cannot be claimed by private individuals. Consequently, it is not possible to affirm that RCTV and, in particular, its shareholders had acquired a right to, or ownership of, the spectrum. 358 Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, article 11. Article 11 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela establishes that the full sovereignty of the Republic is also exercised over the continental, insular and maritime airspace and the resources within this, such as the electromagnetic spectrum. In this regard, expert witness Alfredo Morles Hernández explained that “the radio spectrum, as part of the terrestrial and extraterrestrial atmosphere in which the waves that produce sounds and images circulate is physically intangible as a whole; however, the airspace may be occupied partially and, by employing technology, the radio spectrum may be used.” Opinion of expert witness Alfredo Morles Hernández of May 5, 2014 (merits file, volume III, folio 1593). 359 Telecommunications Organic Law of Venezuela. March 28, 2000, articles 5 and 7 (merits file, volume IV, annex 21, folios 2956 to 3051). This ownership was also recognized in the previous Telecommunications Organic Law, which assigned the establishment and exploitation of the whole communications system and procedures for the transmission of electric or visual signals exclusively to the State. In this regard, see Telecommunications Organic Law of Venezuela. August 1, 1940, article 1, complete text consulted at: http://www.procuraduriacarabobo.gob.ve/site/images/stories /pdf_descargas/leyes/derogadas/Ley%20de%20Telecomunicaciones%201940.pdf 360 361 Opinion of expert witness José Leonardo Suárez during the public hearing in this case. 362 Opinion of expert witness Heli Rafael Romero during the public hearing in this case.