69 that, in light of the discretionary powers of the State, “the not conditional on any prior procedure; it is not conditional of the programming.” Despite this, the State also argued media, through radio, television and the press, [had] tried since President Chávez came to power.” refusal to renew the concession is on the quantity, quality or variety that the “power exercised by the to destroy Venezuelan democracy 212. Regarding the reasons to assign “the RCTV signal rather than that of another television station,” it stated that, “of the VHF signals that exist, that of Channel 2 is the one that has the greatest reach owing to its location on the electromagnetic spectrum band; technically speaking, this signal is the one that is the most advantageous; it is the first signal on the dial on the electromagnetic spectrum band; it has the greatest reach, even more than a State signal, such as Venezolana de Televisión, and therefore requires less investment to distribute it.” It added that “[t]here are considerable savings in technical and infrastructure costs and the signal has significant reach nationwide; in addition, the antennas, the towers, their location – the attributes of the concession, as this is defined in article 110 of the Telecommunications Organic Law – are specific for each signal; in other words, the RCTV infrastructure, specifically its transmitters, is only suitable for use with that particular signal.” The State also indicated “that the activity of exploitation of the electromagnetic spectrum is a public service; [consequently, it] considered that the collective interest had priority over the private interest of a communications company that has operated that frequency for 53 years based on respect for the constitutional rights of companies.” 213. The State reiterated that the selection of the RCTV chain was due “merely to technical reasons,” because “the frequencies have viewing channels,” so that “the frequencies 2 and 3, which [were] those that RCTV [had, are those that are] closest to the earth; therefore, they have a greater reach, they extend further and require less expensive equipment.” It added that “it was the only channel […] that had nationwide coverage.” It emphasized that, it was “a technical necessity; that is the reason for choosing one or another; there is no other reason, there is no political reason. That is false, totally false.” B.2. Considerations of the Court 214. In its case law, the Court has established that Article 1(1) of the Convention is a general provision the content of which extends to all the provisions of this treaty because it establishes the obligation of the States Parties to respect and ensure the free and full exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized therein “without any discrimination.” In other words, whatever the origin or the form it assumes, any treatment that may be considered discriminatory in relation to the exercise of any of the rights recognized in the Convention is per se incompatible with it.288 The State’s failure to comply, by any discriminatory treatment, with the general obligation to respect and ensure human rights, gives rise to its international responsibility.289 Accordingly, there is an indissoluble link between the obligation to respect and ensure human rights and the principle of equality and non-discrimination.290 215. Furthermore, the Court has reiterated that the equal and effective protection of the law and of non-discrimination constitutes an outstanding principle in the system for the protection Cf. Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 53, and Case of the Afro-descendant Communities displaced from the Rio Cacarica Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270, para. 332. 288 Cf. Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 85, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, para. 218. 289 Cf. Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, para. 53, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, para. 218. 290