43 including President Chávez, starting in 2003. It added that “no evidence had been provided establishing that the National Telecommunications Plan used by the State to justify the need to take back the frequency was adopted and published prior to the issue of Communication No. 0424,” announcing the decision not to renew the RCTV concession; to the contrary, “that Plan was presented by the President of the Republic four months after the decision not to renew the concession had been taken.” It also argued that, “faced with a situation of misuse of power or indirect abuse, it is essential to identify the motive for and purpose of the decision not to renew the concession. [In the instant case, this refers to] the non-renewal of the RCTV concession and the seizure of all its assets, which was due to the channel’s critical editorial line and the purpose was to punish it for this attitude.” Based on the foregoing, the Commission considered “proven […] that the non-renewal of the concession was motivated […] by the Venezuelan government’s disagreement with the station’s editorial stance; therefore it constituted a clearly act of misuse of power and a violation of Article 13(3) of the Convention 122. The representatives agreed with most of the Commission’s arguments. However, they added that, “[i]n Venezuela, the electromagnetic spectrum is a public asset owned by the State and it is administered by the Executive. Consequently, the concession for the use and exploitation of the electromagnetic spectrum is a concession in the public domain that grants the concessionaire exclusive use over the electromagnetic spectrum, because neither the grantor nor any other person may use that portion of this spectrum.” They argued that “the public statements of the President of the Republic and of other officials reveal that, in their opinion, the Venezuelan Government has arbitrary authority not to extend or renew, as it pleases, the licenses of a concessionaire of a free-to-air television outlet or radio station when they expire.” 123. The representatives argued that, according to the LOTEL and its regulations, “the only reason why the non-renewal of a concession would not be admissible […] would be failure to comply with the law, its regulations, the general conditions established by [CONATEL] or the respective authorization.” They indicated that “it is not just any failure to comply that is sufficient to refuse the renewal,” because “[i]t must be […] serious, proven and extremely strong non-compliance with the concessionaire’s essential obligations.” The representatives also argued that “the right of the concessionaires of free-to-air television to continue operating and to obtain the renewal of their licenses is a recognized standard and a general principle of administrative law on telecommunication concessions, based on recognition of all the work and investments made by the concessionaire, with the legitimate expectation that his right will be extended or renewed, unless there are clear, serious and justified legal reasons to end the legal relationship.” Accordingly, they indicated that “the Venezuelan Government did not and does not have discretionary or arbitrary powers to purely and simply deny the extension or renewal of the license of a free-to-air television station. 124. The representatives also argued that “the concessions regulated by Decree [No. 1577] include a clause that grants the concessionaire a right to the extension of the concession for a further 20 years.” They also argued that “RCTV had, at least, the right to a 20-year extension as of May 27, 2007, […]. In fact, the Venezuelan government was legally obliged to extend or renew those licenses, pursuant to the LOTEL and applicable regulations, as it did for the other television stations whose concessions expired that same day (Venevisión and VTV).” They indicated that “RCTV had never been penalized for serious violations of the LOTEL, the Radio and Television Social Responsibility Law or any other applicable law,” so that there were no “legal grounds whatsoever to disregard RCTV’s right to the extension of its concession under the previous or the current legal regime.” In addition, the representatives argued that “RCTV ha[d] complied fully with its obligation to request the transformation of [the] licenses” in accordance with the provisions of article 210 of the LOTEL, but “the Ministry of Infrastructure