48 evidence. The Commission finds it has been proven, therefore, that the nonrenewal of RCTV’s franchise was motivated not by the presumptively legitimate reasons officially given by the State but by the Venezuelan Government’s disagreement with the station’s editorial stance; therefore it constitutes a 200 clearly act of abuse of power and a violation of Article 13.3 of the Convention . 154. In this case, the petitioners have further alleged that the decision not to renew the RCTV franchise constituted an act of discrimination that violated Article 24 of the American Convention. The Commission recalls that Article 24 provides that all persons “are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law,” while Article 1.1 guarantees enjoyment of the rights guaranteed in the Convention “without any discrimination” for reasons that include “political or other opinion.” The Court has established in this regard that “[t]here is an inseparable connection between the obligation to respect and guarantee 201 human rights and the principle of equality and non-discrimination” , but that, under Article 24, the general 202 prohibition of discrimination set forth in Article 1.1 “extends to the domestic law of the States Parties” . For the Court, while the general obligation under Article 1.1 refers to the duty of the State to respect and guarantee “without discrimination” the rights set forth in the American Convention, Article 24 protects the right to “equal protection of the law.” That is, Article 24 of the American Convention prohibits discrimination, de jure or de facto, in respect not only of the rights enshrined in that instrument but of all 203 laws enacted by the State and of their application . 155. The petitioners have alleged, and the State has not contested their allegation, that another television channel was operating in similar circumstances to RCTV and whose concession was renewed at the same time that RCTV’s application was denied. The IACHR observes that, in fact, RCTV’s concession ended on May 27, 2007, as did the concession of other television channels, among them Venevisión, a private free-to-air, VHF television station, with a viewing audience similar to that of 204 RCTV and with almost nationwide coverage. However, while RCTV’s concession was not renewed, the 205 concessions of Venevisión and the other television stations were renewed. The Commission observes that if the Venezuelan government felt it necessary not to renew the frequency, it could have held a competition among the stations that were similarly situated to determine which frequency it would not renew. However, none of the available evidence suggests that the Venezuelan State ever considered the possibility of using another frequency to achieve the objectives spelled out in Communication No. 0424. The IACHR is left to ask why these two channels, which were similar in nature, were treated differently. 156. This distinction might have been reasonable if, for example, RCTV had violated the law or the Constitution. Indeed, as the Commission and Court have consistently recognized, freedom of 200 The IACHR has called the diversion of power “the use of technically valid procedures to mask an unlawful practice.” IACHR petition to the I.A. Court H.R.. Case of Ana María Ruggeri Cova, Perkins Rocha Contreras, and Juan Carlos Apitz (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Case 12.489, November 29, 2006. Para. 128. See also: Constitutional Court of Colombia, ruling C-456-98, defining diversion of power as a concept of administrative law “in which the authority attributed to a state body for an administrative function is used for a purpose other than to meet the public aims for which it was granted.” See also: European Court of Human Rights, Case of Gusinskiy v. Russia, Judgment of May 19, 2004, paras. 71-78. 201 I.A. Court H.R., “Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants.” Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, September 17, 2003. Series A, No. 18, para. 85. 202 I.A. Court H.R., “Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child.” Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, August 28, 2002. Series A, No. 17, para. 44. 203 I.A. Court H.R., Case of Atala Riffo and Children v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C, No. 239, para. 82. 204 Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, pp. 194-197. Facts not contested by the State. See, also, information on Venevisión, available [in Spanish] at http://www.venevision.com/el_canal/?utm_source=Home_Venevision&utm_medium=Barra_Navegacion&utm_campaign=El_Canal, and information from AGB Nielsen on audience shares in 2006, which found that RCTV had an audience share of 28% nationwide, and Venevisión 27%. Available [in Spanish] at: http://www.agbnielsen.com.ve/libro2006/share/1.htm. 205 Ministry of the People’s Power for Communication and Information. “Conatel procesa renovación de habilitaciones que vencen el 27 de mayo” [CONATEL processing renewals of concessions that expire on May 27], May 26, 2007, available [in Spanish] at: http://www.leyresorte.gob.ve/noticias/1/13981/conatel_procesa_renovacion.html. Annex 72, State Communication received on December 4, 2011.