104 C.1. Restitution C.1.1. Reinstatement of the concession, a new concessions process, and return of property and assets 372. The Commission did not submit any specific arguments on the representatives’ request concerning the reinstatement of the concession or the return of the property and assets. However, it asked that the State “[i]nitiate a procedure to allocate a free-to-air nationwide television frequency in which RCTV is able to participate, at a minimum, under equal conditions.” It added that “[t]he procedure should be open, independent and transparent, apply clear, objective and reasonable criteria, and avoid any political consideration that discriminates on the basis of a media outlet’s editorial stance.” 373. The representatives considered “that the recommendations made by the Commission were insufficient to redress the violations of the right to freedom of expression” and indicated “that the full reparation that the State was obliged to make entailed restitutio in integrum, which signified that it should re-establish the original legal situation of the victims prior to the violation.” They added that “[t]he Commission’s recommendation did not fully repair the harm caused or return the victims to their original legal situation prior to the violation.” The representatives argued that full redress meant that “the State must re-establish the rights of the victims, through RCTV, as holder of the administrative concession to operate the television station that corresponds to it, under the same conditions as the other media outlets […] whose concessions were renewed […] for 10 years.” They argued that “none of the television stations that were in the same circumstances as RCTV were subject to a procedure such as the one suggested by the Commission to obtain the renewal of their concession; hence, there was no reason whatsoever to add a new situation that discriminated against RCTV.” 374. The representatives underscored that “on February 19, 2013, national Executive Decree No. 9,389 was issued which initiated a procedure of migration from analogue television to freeto-air digital television in Venezuela, which will be a public service.” Therefore, they asked that “as a measure of restitution, […] RCTV be permitted, under conditions of equality, without any discrimination and pursuant to the laws in force, if applicable to migrate from analogue TV to digital TV in the same conditions as the other concessionaires of nationwide analogue TV in Venezuela.” They added that “in this regard, […] it is possible that RCTV would hold, simultaneously, a concession for nationwide analogue TV, such as the one it enjoyed until 2007, and also the corresponding digital TV concession, so that the request for full access to digital TV in no way signifies an alternative request to the recovery of the concession to transmit in analogue free-to-air TV, but is accumulated to this.” 375. Furthermore, the representatives requested “the return of all the property that was unlawfully seized under the decisions on interim measures arbitrarily issued […] by the Constitutional Chamber of the SCJ, and that have been and are currently being used by the State in TVES without any compensation.” 376. The State argued that “[concessions are granted by] sovereign States for assets that are part of the public domain, [and] all these concessions, by their nature, have [a limited] duration and purpose pursuant to domestic law; in other words, the person who becomes a concessionaire by receiving from the State the right to exploit a specific asset, in this case the electromagnetic spectrum, is previously aware of the duration of this concession and knows that he is subject to the State’s authority as regards the concession, which the State can revoke at any time based on the collective or social interest, or even decide not to renew.” The State added that “the term for granting a radio or television concession is not pre-established, but is