58 procedures in light of the American Convention in order to avoid abuse by official controls and the generation of possible indirect restrictions. 2. Alleged right to automatic extension or renewal of the concession 172. In the instant case, the representatives have argued that the violation of the right to freedom of expression occurred owing to failure to comply with domestic and international laws, from which a right to the renewal of the concession can be deduced. In this regard, the Court points out that the representatives presented contradictory concepts, using them indistinctly, because they have argued that RCTV had a preferential right, a right to extension of the concession, and a reasonable expectation of renewal or an automatic renewal. To the contrary, the State has asserted that such a right to the renewal of the concession granted to RCTV cannot be deduced from domestic law and, therefore, the closure arose exclusively from verification that the period for which the concession had originally been granted had expired. Consequently, the Court finds it necessary to analyze the following disputed aspects to determine whether the facts of this case constituted a restriction of the right to freedom of expression: (i) the law applicable to the concession granted to RCTV; (ii) whether Decree No. 1,577 of May 27, 1987, established a right to renewal of the concession or a preferential right; (iii) whether the entry into force of the LOTEL granted an automatic extension to the concession, and (iv) whether any obligation to renew broadcasting concessions exists in comparative law or in international law. 173. Regarding the applicable law, the Court underlines that RCTV’s first concession was granted in 1953. This concession was regulated, first, by the Telecommunications Law of August 1, 1940,261 in force at the time, which was replaced by Decree No. 1,577 of May 27, 1987, establishing the Regulations for Television and Radio Station Concessions. Then, in 2000, the State enacted the LOTEL. 174. The dispute between the parties as to which of the two norms, Decree No. 1,577 or the LOTEL, would be applicable arises owing to the entry into force of the LOTEL in 2000 and, especially, due to the request to transform the licenses made by RCTV on June, 5, 2002, which was not answered until 2007. On this point, the Court agrees with the Inter-American Commission that it is not competent to establish which norm is applicable, particularly when there is disagreement on the interpretation of this matter, because the Court is not a tribunal of fourth instance.262 However, the Court considers it necessary to point out that neither of the two possible interpretations of application of the norms results in a right to renewal or automatic extension. 175. Based on Article 3 of Decree No. 1,577, the representatives have argued that “the concessions governed by [this] Decree include a clause that grants the concessionaires a right to the extension of the concessions for 20 more years.” In this regard, the Court observes that this article establishes that: At the end of the concession, the concessionaires who, during the period indicated in article 1 have complied with the legal provisions established by the Telecommunications Law, the Radiocommunications Regulations, and other legal provisions, shall have preference for the France, Germany, Mexico, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Uruguay. Cf. Telecommunications Law of the Republic of Venezuela published on August 1, 1940 (evidence file, folio 4543). 262 Similarly, see: Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, para. 188: “Lastly, the Court has indicated that it is not a fourth instance that can make an assessment of the evidence regarding which of the parents of the three girls offers a better home for them. Likewise, the Court is not a fourth instance that can rule on the dispute between different sectors of internal legal doctrine on the scope of domestic law concerning the requirements for the admissibility of the remedy of complaint.” 261

Select target paragraph3