45 of the LOTEL “expressly derogated all existing legal and regulatory provisions regarding anything contrary to the provisions of that law.” 130. In addition, the State argued that “[t]he National Executive decided, through the Ministry of the People’s Power for Telecommunications, to assign the use of the Channel 2 signal to respond to the requirement under article 108 of the Constitution […], which establishes the State’s duty to guarantee public television services in order to permit universal access to information in keeping with the National Telecommunications Plan.” It added that “the Venezuelan Social Television Foundation (TEVES), which now operates the RCTV frequency, was developed as an alternative medium that has been operating to carry out the proposals of the Strategic Plan and to continue the public service, but in an appropriate and constitutional way, meeting the main objectives which are to inform, entertain and provide a social and educational service at all levels, making the space previously occupied by RCTV C.A., a true window for the people’s democratic expression in which every voice and the opinions of every sector have a place, that makes no distinction between political ideas, and that constitutes not only a source of entertainment for the whole family, but also a reference point for true and objective information.” 131. Furthermore, the State argued that, “among the factors it took into consideration […] when deciding not to renew the RCTV broadcasting license [was] the said television outlet’s failure to comply with Venezuelan laws and regulations, as well as basic ethical standards that should govern the function of social communicators.” It alleged that RCTV had abused “its right to freedom of expression because its programming revealed a constant misrepresentation of the facts, concealment of information and manipulation of the declarations made to the population,” thereby “limiting the right of the collectivity to be informed in a true, timely and balanced way.” It also argued that “the right of the journalists, executives and other employees to express themselves freely – within the limits established by law – through that television channel, using the concession granted, [was] restricted to the time the said concession was in force, following which […] they needed to avail themselves of other media – operating legally – to exercise that right. And this situation has occurred, because the journalists and many of the RCTV employees are providing their professional services to other media in Venezuela and abroad.” 132. Additionally, during the public hearing, the State indicated that “in Venezuela, in addition to the dictatorial government issuing a decree to end the Constitution that had been voted for by an immense majority of Venezuelans, a communications shutdown began under which, for several days, nothing relating to “Chavism” and the people’s efforts to restore democraticallyelected activities was shown on the screens,” because, “following the inauguration of the dictator Carmona, […] the media, including RCTV, continued the communications shutdown for several days to conceal the efforts of the people to restore the legitimately elected authorities.” A.2. Considerations of the Court 133. Taking into account the arguments presented by the parties and the Commission, the Court considers it necessary first, to establish the general standards for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression. Second, it will determine whether, in this case, a right to the automatic extension or renewal of the concession existed. And, then, the Court will determine whether there was an indirect restriction prohibited by Article 13(3) of the American Convention. 1. General standards concerning the right to freedom of expression