74 RCTV involved discriminatory treatment in the exercise of the right to freedom of expression based on the application of one of the types of discrimination prohibited by Article 1(1) of the American Convention. Consequently, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to freedom of expression established in Article 13 in relation to the obligation of non-discrimination contained in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Marcel Granier, Peter Bottome, Jaime Nestares, Inés Bacalao, Eladio Lárez, Eduardo Sapene, Daniela Bergami, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, Soraya Castellano, María Arriaga and Larissa Patiño. VIII. JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION 236. In this chapter, the Court will examine the arguments presented by the parties and the Commission and develop the pertinent points of law relating to the alleged violations of judicial guarantees and judicial protection in the following order: (i) proceedings in which the violation of Article 8 of the Convention has been alleged, and (ii) proceedings in which Article 25 of the Convention has been alleged. A) Alleged violations of Article 8 of the Convention – judicial guarantees A.1. Administrative procedures for transformation of the titles and renewal of the concession A.1.1. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 237. The Commission argued that the procedure for the assignation and renewal of “concessions must be strictly regulated by law, characterized by transparency, and guided by criteria that are objective, impartial, clear, public and compatible with a democratic society. [Also,] a party seeking a decision of this kind must have the right to be heard and to offer evidence before a decision is taken; also to be guaranteed the right to a reasoned decision within a reasonable time, and to subsequent judicial review.” 238. The Commission also related Article 13 to Article 8 of the Convention because it considered that “[t]he procedural obligations that follow from Article 13 are dictated by the administrative due process obligations that are enshrined in Article 8.” In this regard, the Commission argued that “the State also violated Article 8 of the Convention by conducting an administrative process that had a definitive impact on the right to freedom of expression, without observing due process of law.” Specifically, it argued “that this process was conducted in secret, outside the boundaries of the clear legal framework, and RCTV’s right to be heard and to offer evidence was never respected.” 239. Meanwhile, the representatives argued that “[t]he process to assign and renew concessions should have been strictly regulated by law, characterized by transparency, and guided by criteria that were objective, clear, public, non-discriminatory and in keeping with the values of a democratic society.” They also emphasized that “[a]ny act that led to terminating [the RCTV] concession should have been preceded by a procedure in which the concessionaire and other directly interested parties had the right to intervene and to submit their arguments concerning the continuation of the concession.” They argued that there had been a lack of due process, adding that “[n]ot even the government’s argument concerning the discretional nature of the renewal or the concession […] exonerated it from applying the guarantees of Article 8.” 240. The representatives also alleged the violation of Article 8 because, in their opinion, “the Venezuelan State should have guaranteed RCTV a right that the decision on the renewal of its