44 delayed more than four years and six months” and did not complete the process of transforming the licenses. 125. The representatives argued that the no-renewal of the concession constituted an “arbitrary action of the State with the deliberate intention of eliminating an independent media company, […] based on political considerations, to penalize the diffusion of information and ideas by RCTV.” In particular, they argued that “the issue of the concession was addressed by the President of the Republic and other senior officials of the Venezuelan State and, in some case, by those who took decisions on the revocation of the concessions of private media companies, with an evident political motivation and with the unconcealed purpose of silencing the independent television companies that offered space to those who legitimately criticize, are adverse to or oppose the government.” They added that “’[t]he Venezuelan Government cannot cite a supposed need to use the precise frequencies assigned to RCTV to try and justify the decision to prevent RCTV from continuing to operate as a free-to-air VHR television station.” 126. The representatives asserted that “the non-renewal of the RCTV concession and the State’s arbitrary seizure of its audiovisual broadcasting assets should be seen as a whole; in other words, as a unit that ended in the closure of RCTV. The judicial seizure of the RCTV equipment (broadcasting stations, antennas and repeaters) and their assignment to CONATEL around 56 hours before the announced end of the concession lends particular clarity to the violation of freedom of expression […]. The abnormally rapid and unusual judicial intervention, ex officio, that placed in the hands of the National Executive the assets that the victims had been using to impart ideas and information, reveals that there must have been, at the very least, a coordinated strategy by the organs of the Venezuelan State to deprive RCTV of the possibility of continuing to be a medium at the service of freedom of expression.” 127. The State indicated that the argument that “the purpose of the Venezuelan State’s decision not to renew the RCTV concession to operate as a television station was to silence this media outlet because it distributed critical opinions and information contrary to the government” was disproved “because other Venezuela television stations that were as critical and against the government as RCTV had their concessions renewed; for example, Venevisión and Televén.” It added that the “companies [that own RCTV] have continued to operate and do business in Venezuelan territory without any restriction of their constitutional guarantees.” 128. The State indicated that “the administrative concession is a license granted by the State, through the competent body, for the establishment and operation of networks and the provision of telecommunication services, to those who have met the legal requirements and conditions and no right is ever transferred to public property (the electromagnetic spectrum), which always remains within the State’s domain.” It added that “[t]he establishment and operation of the telecommunication networks is an activity of general interest subject to strict legal control and supervision by the State, which also reserves to itself the exclusive operation of the radioelectric spectrum, as well as the power, through the corresponding body, the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL), to grant concessions in this area.” 129. The State also argued that “it [was] not true that, with the entry into effect of the [LOTEL] in 2000, the validity of the RCTV concession was extended for 20 years more, […] by making a flexible interpretation of the text of article 210(4) of the said law, because the only logical, reasonable and legal interpretation was that the time remaining time in the concession was the time that should be respected”; namely, until May 27, 2007. Therefore, the State indicated that “the legal situation submitted in this case is the simple legal extinction of concession that the State decided not to renew, under its discretionary authority to administer public property such as, in this case, the electromagnetic spectrum.” It added that article 207