105 set by the authority that administers the electromagnetic spectrum in Venezuela.” In addition, the State rejected the Commission’s argument that the decision not to renew the RCTV concession was arbitrary and discriminatory because this argument “sidelined the sovereign right of Venezuela to use an asset that belongs to it, such as the electromagnetic spectrum.” Lastly, the State argued that “[i]t was illogical […] to open a public procedure to allocate the signal held by RCTV until 2007, when the owner of the asset has decided to reserve the right of use and exploitation.” 377. Regarding the equipment that was the subject of the interim measure issued by the Supreme Court of Justice, the State argued that “these assets were allocated temporarily to Televisora Venezolana Social, which uses them for the transmission of its free-to-air signal […] nationwide.” The State added that “[r]egarding the value of the assets subject to the interim measure, if the Supreme Court decides that payment should be made for their value, this will be done according to the fair value established by experts who will present their report to the courts.” 378. The State also emphasized “that the RCTV transmission equipment was developed to work with a specific frequency, so that even if it was returned immediately it could not be used in national territory by any other company. Regarding the intangible value of the assets, the State argued that this has not been proved and rejected any claim for compensation in this regard. Considerations of the Court 379. In paragraphs 199, 235, 253, 276, 287 and 308 of this judgment, the Court declared the violation by the Venezuelan State of the rights to freedom of expression, to its exercise without discrimination, and to judicial guarantees. The violation of the right to freedom of expression declared in this case signified that not only were the victims prevented from exercising it fully, but the social dimension of the right was also violated (supra para. 198), because Venezuelan society was unable to receive the information and opinions that RCTV broadcast. Added to this, the Court verified that the main purpose of the decision not to renew the channel’s concession was to silence its criticisms (supra para. 198). Consequently, a reparation is required that restores the plurality of the media that was affected by the indirect restriction declared in this case. 380. Therefore, owing to the nature of these violations and without this signifying recognition of RCTV’s ownership of the concession, as a necessary measure to ensure the enjoyment and exercise of the rights violated in this case pursuant to Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court orders that the concession of the frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum corresponding to television Channel 2 be re-established, until it is granted definitively as a result of the process established in paragraph 382 of this judgment. This measure does not involve the protection of, or reparation for the legal person (RCTV C.A), but constitutes an appropriate measure to redress the rights that have been declared violated of the shareholders and employees, even if, at the present time, they are not part of or do not work for the company. 381. To ensure that this measure is not illusory and without this signifying a ruling on the right to property, the Court orders the return of the assets subject to interim measures, because they are essential for the effective operation of the concession. In addition, this measure repairs the violations declared in relation to the judicial guarantees of the right to be heard and of a reasonable time in the judicial proceedings relating to the action on joint and separate interests (supra para. 308).