70 of human rights embodied in numerous international instruments and developed by legal doctrine and case law.291 At the current stage of evolution of international law, the fundamental principle of equality and non-discrimination has entered the domain of jus cogens; the whole legal structure of national and international public order rests on it and it permeates the whole legal system.292 216. In the instant case, the Commission concluded that the differential treatment suffered by the RCTV executives and employees was discriminatory and arbitrary in violation of Articles 1(1) and 24 of the Convention. Meanwhile, the representatives argued that the decision not to renew the RCTV concession constituted a serious violation of the obligations imposed on the Venezuelan State by Article 24 of the American Convention. 217. With regard to Articles 1(1) and 24 of the Convention, the Court has indicated that “[t]he difference between the two articles lies in that the general obligation contained in Article 1(1) refers to the State’s duty to respect and guarantee “non-discrimination” in the enjoyment of the rights enshrined in the American Convention, while Article 24 protects the right to equal treatment by the law. In other words, if the State discriminates with regard to the guarantee of a Convention right, it would violate Article 1(1) and the substantial right in question. If, on the contrary, the discrimination refers to an unequal protection by domestic law or its application, the fact should be examined in light of Article 24.”293 218. The Court notes that the facts of this case do not relate to unequal protection derived from a domestic law or its application; thus, it is not appropriate to examine the presumed violation of the right to equal protection of the law contained in Article 24 of the Convention. Consequently, the Court will only examine the alleged violation of the obligation to respect and to ensure, without discrimination, the rights contained in the American Convention established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, in relation to the presumed victims’ right to freedom of expression. 219. To determine whether there has been a violation of the obligation to respect and to ensure rights without discrimination in this case, the Court will analyze: (i) whether RCTV was in equal conditions to other television channels; (ii) whether it received unequal treatment based on the use of any of the prohibited categories of discrimination established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, and (iii) whether the State presented evidence that the differential treatment conformed to the American Convention. 1. Conditions of equality between RCTV and other television channels 220. The Court underlines that the concession granted to RCTV under Decree No. 1,577 was never transformed pursuant to the provisions of the LOTEL even though, as indicated, RCTV requested this transformation in June 2002 (supra para. 87). In the absence of this transformation, the RCTV concession expired on May 27, 2007, at the end of its 20-year term. 221. The Court notes that, on the date the RCTV concession expired, there were other television stations that shared some similar characteristics with RCTV and whose concession also expired on May 27, 2007. These television channels were VTV, Venevisión, Televisora Cf. Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of 2August 4, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 269, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 205. 291 Cf. Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, para. 101, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, para. 216. 292 Case of Apitz Barbera et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 209, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, para. 214. 293