63 or a misuse of power. The Court bases its analysis on the presumption that the actions of the State authorities are in keeping with the law. 274 And, therefore, an irregular action by the State authorities has to be substantiated in order to disprove this good faith presumption.275 Accordingly, the Court will proceed: (a) to review the evidence in the case file on the alleged undeclared purpose, and (b) examine this evidence. a) Review of statements and documents on the alleged undeclared purpose 190. When making its decision, the Court takes into account its extensive review of public statements made by officials of the Venezuelan State since 2002 indicating that the concessions of some private social communications outlets in Venezuela would not be renewed (supra paras. 75 to 86). Among the different statements previously described, the following are reiterated: a) November 9, 2003, declaration by President Chávez in his program “Aló Presidente” in which he stated: ´”I’m not going to let you do this again, […] you – Globovisión, Televén, Venevisión and RCTV – tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. [Minister] Jesse Chacón, I gave you an order; you must have a team of analysts and observers, 24 hours a day, watching all the channels simultaneously. And we must be very clear, I am very clear that there is a line they must not cross, and they should know, it is the limit established by law. The moment they cross the legal limit they will inevitably be closed down to keep peace in Venezuela, to preserve order in Venezuela.”276 191. In December 2006, State officials began to announce the official decision not to renew the RCTV concession. The following are some of the statements they made: b) declaration of President Chávez of December 28, 2006, on the occasion of his year-end address to the Armed Forces in which he stated: “There’s someone out there, one of those representatives of the oligarchy, who wanted to be President of the oligarchy, and that, then those governments by the Adecos [Acción Democrático] and Copeyanos [COPEI] gave them concessions for television channels, and now he is saying that his concession is eternal; but it ends in March, the television concession, it ends in March. So, he better start packing his bags and thinking about what he’s going to do after March. There’ll be no new concession for that coup-supporting television channel that calls itself Radio Caracas Televisión; the concession’s over; the decision is already being drafted. So, they better start getting ready, turning off the equipment, because we are not going to tolerate any media outlet that is at the service of the coup plotters, against the people, against the nations, against national independence, against the dignity of the Republic, Venezuela has self-respect. I am announcing this measure before the date arrives to that they do not continue with their lies that this cannot be – that they have 20 more years. 20 more years, no way! 20 more years – that’s a joke! It’s over! It’s over!”;277 Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, para. 173, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, para. 210. 274 Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, para. 173, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, para. 210. The Inter-American Court has indicated that “direct evidence, either testimonial or documentary, is not the only evidence that can legitimately be considered to substantiate the judgment. Circumstantial evidence, indications and presumptions may be used, provided that conclusions that are consistent with the facts can be inferred from them.” Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 130. 275 Transcript of the program “Aló Presidente”, No. 171, of November 9, 2003, p. 69, Available at: http://www.aloPresident.gob.ve/materia_alo/25/1551/?desc=alo_President_171.pdf. 277 Video published on the website of “Aporrea” entitled “President Chávez: ‘a RCTV que vayan apagando los 276