3 representatives) that “[r]egarding the reasons to assign ‘the RCTV signal rather than that of another television station,” it stated that, “of the VHF signals that exist, that of Channel 2 is the one that has the greatest reach owing to its location on the electromagnetic spectrum band; technically speaking, this signal is the one that is the most advantageous; it is the first signal on the dial on the electromagnetic spectrum band; it has the greatest reach, even more than a State signal, such as Venezolana de Televisión, and therefore requires less investment to distribute it.” It added that “[t]here are considerable savings in technical and infrastructure costs and the signal has significant reach nationwide; in addition, the antennas, the towers, their location – the attributes of the concession, as this is defined in article 110 of the Telecommunications Organic Law – are specific for each signal; in other words, the RCTV infrastructure, specifically its transmitters, is only suitable for use with that particular signal.’”14 The State also indicated “that the selection of the RCTV chain was due “merely to technical reasons,” because “the frequencies have viewing channels,” so that “the frequencies 2 and 3, which [were] those that RCTV [had, are those that are] closest to the earth; therefore, they have a greater reach, they extend further and require less expensive equipment.” It added that “it was the only channel […] that had nationwide coverage” and emphasized that, it was “a technical necessity.”15 10. This assertion appears to corroborate the following information that can be found by a simple search on the Internet.16 In 1953, “two private commercial television stations were inaugurated, Televisa (unrelated to the actual Mexican chain) and Channel 4 on the VHF band, on June 1, and Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV) on 174-180 MHz on November 15. Subsequently, the latter company asked to change Channel 7 for Channel 2 on the VHF band to improve its coverage in Caracas” (italics added). The representatives’ failure to refute this point means that the argument in the judgment that cites extensively “the inversion of the burden of proof as a result of from the application of a prohibited type of discrimination contained in Article 1(1) of the Convention”17 is unconvincing. 11. The predominance given by the representatives to the material and financial interests is expressed also in the exorbitant request for compensation. Indeed, they ask for 384,458,356 dollars for “the financial prejudice that the devaluation of [RCTV] caused the shareholders” [and] “33,166,954 dollars for transmission equipment made abroad, the general transmission network, sites for placement of transmitters and other equipment, as well as reports on strategic signal coverage in the territory of Venezuela,”18 for a total of 417,625,310 dollars. II. Inadmissibility of the restoration of the concession 12. The fifteenth and sixteenth operative paragraphs are absolutely contradictory to the general reasoning of the judgment, in which it is clearly stated that RCTV did not have a right to the renewal and that there was no automatic renewal either. Inexistence of the right to renewal of the concession of a television channel or to automatic renewal 13. The restoration of the concession would only have been justified if the judgment had 14 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 212. 15 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 213. 16 “Televisión en Venezuela”. 17 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 230. 18 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 398.