107 Court […] on the amendment of legal regimes should be revised constitutionally by the Constitutional Chamber, and it is the internal jurisdiction of Venezuela that determines the constitutionality of the said norms.” Considerations of the Court 389. The Court recalls that the State should prevent the recurrence of human rights violations such as those that occurred and, to this end, take all the legal, administrative and any other measure necessary to avoid similar facts from occurring in the future in compliance with its obligations of prevention and to ensure the fundamental rights recognized in the American Convention.394 In particular, and pursuant to Article 2 of the Convention, the State has the obligation to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention is effective.395 390. In this case, the Court restricted itself to examining the differential treatment suffered by RCTV, based on one of the prohibited categories of discrimination contained in Article 1(1) of the Convention (supra para. 235). The Court did not examine the compatibility of a specific law with the American Convention, nor was this the purpose of this case. Moreover, the representatives did not provide sufficient evidence to allow the Court to infer that the violations arose from a problem in the laws themselves. Therefore, the Court considers that, in the circumstances of this case, it is not pertinent to order the adoption, amendment or adaptation of specific provisions of domestic law. C.3.2. Measures to guarantee the implementation of procedures to allocate and renew radio and television frequencies that reinforce democratic pluralism 391. The Commission asked that the State adopt the measures of non-repetition necessary “to guarantee that the process to allocate and renew radio and television frequencies are compatible with the Venezuelan State’s international obligations with regard to freedom of expression.” 392. The representatives asked the Court to order the State “to provide transparent procedures for the allocation of concessions for the use of the electromagnetic spectrum for broadcasting.” 393. The State rejected the requests of the Commission and the representatives, and argued that, “all the appropriate guarantees for the exercise of freedom of expression through the media exist in Venezuela [and] that it is false that a transparent process does not exist for the award of concessions.” The State also emphasized that “since the government of President Hugo Chávez, a process of the de-monopolization and democratization of the radio spectrum has been undertaken making way for the creation of hundreds of community radio and television stations.” Considerations of the Court 394. The Court establishes that the State should take the necessary measures to ensure that all the future processes held to allocate and renew radio and television frequencies be carried Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 106, and Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 14, 2014. Series C No. 285, para. 179. 394 Cf. Case of Las Dos Erres Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 240, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012 Series C No. 257, para. 335. 395