13 considered a victim when, even while holding a management position as general manager, an individual was not a shareholder.67 40. Regarding activities performed within an audiovisual media outlet that were directly related to communications activities, the European Court has only taken these activities into account when giving victim status to physical persons who are not shareholders, but who play an important role in the editorial line of the media outlet. 68 Thus, in the case of Groppera Radio A.G. and Others v. Switzerland, in addition to considering that the sole shareholder of the company was a victim, the European Court included in this category Mr. Mr. Marquard, Mr. Fröhlivh and Mr. Caluzzi, who worked for the company as journalists. To reach this conclusion, the European Court considered that despite obvious dissimilarities of status and role, there were no grounds for distinguishing between the different applicants, because they all had a direct interest in the continued transmission of the sound radio’s programs by cable; for the sole shareholder it was essential to keep the station’s audience and therefore to maintain its financing from advertising revenue; for the employees, it was a matter of their job security as journalists. In summary, the Strasbourg Court concluded that the three applicants could claim to be victims of the alleged violation. 41. It is worth mentioning that, in the case relating to the audiovisual media and in which, in addition, the shareholders have been admitted as victims on an individual basis, the European Court has not made a distinction between the activities they performed within the company; to the contrary, it has taken into account their ability, as shareholders, to provide assets or social capital to execute the dissemination or communication activities and to guarantee the plurality of opinions, on the grounds that, when a company suffers interference by the State, there is a connection between the violations suffered by the company and the violations suffered by the partners or shareholders. 42. In the above circumstances, the European Court considers as victims all the shareholders who: (1) owing to restrictions established by the company itself are unable to apply to the system; (2) are sole shareholders of the company; (3) despite not being sole shareholders, have the consent of those who do not apply to the protection system, and (4) form part of the proceedings before the system to protect their rights as shareholders. 43. These practical solutions for the consideration of the shareholders of companies or undertakings as victims of human rights violations owing to State acts that are contrary to the European Convention, but which are addressed against the company or undertaking, are the answer that the European Court has provided to a situation that, prima facie, should not have arisen under the European system since legal persons enjoy ius standi before that Court. 44. Under the inter-American system, the preceding exceptions adopted by the European Court could result in giving victim status to all those shareholders of a company who have recourse to the inter-American system to seek protection for their rights, merely because they are shareholders and also when there is no risk of disagreements or claims among them or between them and the board of directors. This is crucially important for the inter-American system where, contrary to the European Court, the general rule of protecting companies does not exist. Consequently, the only remedy the shareholders have is to resort, on an individual Furthermore, there was nothing in the case file to suggest that the second applicant could presume to be an indirect victim, in his individual capacity, of the presumed violation of the Convention that affected the rights of the limited liability company. Case of Amat-G LTD and Mebaghishvli v. Georgia, No. 2507/03, September 27, 2005. 67 Case of Amat-G LTD and Mebaghishvli v. Georgia, paras. 32 to 34. 68 Case of Groppera Radio A.G. et al. v. Switzerland, paras. 46 to 51