49 206 expression is not an absolute right. Article 13 of the American Convention provides expressly—in paragraphs 2, 4 and 5—that it can be subject to certain limitations, and establishes the general 207 framework of the conditions required for such limitations to be legitimate. Article 13.2 in particular expressly foresees the possibility of imposing subsequent liability for the abusive exercise of freedom of 208 expression. Meanwhile, Article 13.5 of the Convention identifies forms of speech that are not protected by freedom of expression, such as propaganda for war and advocacy of hatred that constitute incitements 209 to lawless violence, direct and public incitement to genocide, and child pornography . Nonetheless, such a violation of the law by RCTV would have to have been established in a proceeding conducted in accordance with due process norms and respect for the right of defense; there is no evidence to suggest that this happened in the present case. 157. The State for its part limited itself to indicating that the renewal of the concessions of several other free-to-air television broadcasters in addition to that of Venevisión shows that there was no 210 violation of the right to equality before the law. However, the State did not respond to the petitioners’ argument that out of all the television broadcasters, "there were two free-to-air television stations - Radio Caracas Televisión and Venevisión - whose legal, technical and commercial conditions were identical and 211 which the Venezuelan Government treated differently." The State’s explanation would serve to justify the creation of a public television channel, but not the differential treatment with respect to two stations in identical conditions. The only explanation for this distinction that appears in the case file is the editorial position or political opinion of the two channels. Specifically, at the time of the events in this case, RCTV 212 was critical of the government, whereas Venevisión’s editorial line was favorable to the government. The IACHR observes that the case file contains statements made by high-ranking officials of the Venezuelan government to the effect that some stations had changed their editorial line and would, 213 therefore, have their concessions renewed; for others, however, that had not “mended their ways,” 214 “there would be no new concession.” 206 I/A Court H. R., Case Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 3, 2008. Series C No. 177. para. 54; I/A Court H. R., Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135. para. 79; I/A Court H. R., Case of Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107. para. 120; I/A Court H. R., Case of Tristán Donoso Vs. Panama. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193. para. 110; I/A Court H. R., Case of Ríos et al. Vs. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194. para. 106; I/A Court H. R., Case of Perozo et al. Vs. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195. para. 117; IACHR, Annual Report 1994. OEA/Ser.L/V.88. Doc. 9 rev. 1. 17 February 1995. Chapter V. 207 I/A Court H. R., Case of Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107. para. 120; I/A Court H.R., Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5. para. 35; IACHR. Report No. 11/96. Case 11.230. Merits. Francisco Martorell. Chile. May 3, 1996. para. 55; IACHR, Arguments before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, cited in I/A Court H. R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111. para. 72.a) 208 I/A Court H. R., Case Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 3, 2008. Series C No. 177. para. 54; I/A Court H. R., Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135. para. 79; IACHR. Report No. 11/96. Case 11.230. Merits. Francisco Martorell. Chile. May 3, 1996. para. 58; IACHR, Annual Report 1994. OEA/Ser.L/V.88. Doc. 9 rev. 1. 17 February 1995. Chapter V. 209 CIDH. Relatoría Especial para la Libertad de Expresión. Marco Jurídico Interamericano sobre el Derecho a la libertade expresión. OEA/Ser.L/V/II CIDH/RELE/INF. 1/09. 30 de diciembre de 2009, párrs. 57-60. 210 Annex 72, State Communication received on December 4, 2011. 211 Annex 1, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, p. 199. 212 Cf. European Union Election Observation Mission, Final Report, Presidential Elections Venezuela 2006, p. 33, available at: http://eeas.europa.eu/human_rights/election_observation/venezuela_2006/final_report_en.pdf, where it wrote that Venevisión devoted 84% of its political information to the oficialista position during the 2006 election campaign. Also instructive is the statement made by President Chávez on June 14, 2006, where he said in part “I have ordered a review of the television concessions. Some stations or channels have signaled that they’re ready to change, and it would appear that they intend to obey the Constitution and the law, joining those who supported the 2002 coup, which was everyone.” 213 Annex 28, El Nacional, article titled Chávez amenazó con revocar concesiones a televisoras en 2007 [Chávez threatened to revoke television concessions in 2007], June 15, 2006. Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 29; Annex 29, Vive, article titled Lara: Hay televisoras y emisoras de radio que violentan los derechos de los Continúa…