99 continuity of the provision of a universal public service, in ruling No. 957 the Constitutional Chamber assigned to CONATEL the right to use the necessary equipment for television operations so that it could transfer its use to the operator established to this end pursuant to the provisions of the LOTEL.368 Both measures were executed on May 27 and 28 that year and both measures were executed with regard to the property owned by the company. 348. The Court recalls, as it has indicated in other cases, that it is does not have jurisdiction to examine the presumed violations of the Convention to the detriment of legal entities.369 Therefore, it is unable to analyze the consequences arising from the interim measures imposed on the property that formed part of RCTV’s assets370 or to determine whether those consequences have violated the company’s right to property. 349. One of the expert witnesses proposed by the representatives indicated that the strict separation between the assets of the shareholders and those of the legal entity should not be applied in this case. Regarding the effects that directly limit the rights of the shareholders, expert witness Alfredo Morles Hernández indicated that “the general rule of the separation of assets, characteristic of limited liability companies in general, should be substituted by the rule of the merging of assets, for the simple reason that the corporate guise of the communications business is a fiction […]. This reality is a well-known, public fact. It does not have to be proved.”371 Similarly, the expert witness argued that “in [a] closed corporation, a company with a limited number of shareholders, frequently a family company, which is not subject to any kind of third party protection, […] a phenomenon can be observed of a lack of differentiation in the shareholders’ administration of the company’s assets, with the result that the company’s assets and the shareholders’ assets merge into one.”372 350. Regarding the argument that the general rule of the separation of assets should not be applied, the Court has established that the legal entity of RCTV was a vehicle for the freedom of expression of its employees and executives (supra para. 148). Nevertheless, it does not find that this provides sufficient legal grounds to assert that this instrumental function signifies that the separation of the assets of the legal person and its shareholders has disappeared. The Court reiterates that the rights of a company’s shareholders differ from the rights of the legal person;373 thus, in order to overlook the legal personality of the limited liability company and attribute legitimacy for the shareholders to claim the harm resulting from acts addressed at the company, it is necessary to have sufficient evidence to prove that relationship. 351. No evidence was presented to substantiate the assertion made by expert witness Morles concerning the merging of the assets owing to administration by the family. Without Cf. Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Files No. 07-0731, Decision No. 957 of May 25, 2007 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 65, folio 3486). 369 Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, para. 29, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, paras. 399 and 402. 368 Even though the Court’s case file does not contain any official ownership record or document proving that RCTV C.A. owns the assets subject to the interim measures, the Court notes that, both the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice ordering the measure and the records of the execution of the measure expressly refer to RCTV’s ownership of the said assets. In this regard, see Decision No. 957 of the Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0731, of May 25, 2007 (evidence file, folios 3486 and 3487), and Record of the execution of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of May 27, 2007 (evidence file folios 3494 to 3509, 3511 to 3522 and 3524 to 3531). 370 371 Opinion of expert witness Alfredo Morles Hernández of May 5, 2014 (merits file, folio 1609). 372 Opinion of expert witness Alfredo Morles Hernández of May 5, 2014 (merits file, folio 1611). Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, para. 26. This division has also been recognized repeatedly in international law. In this regard, see also Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970, p. 36, para. 47. similarly, the International Court of Justice in the case of Ahmadou Sadio Diallo, recognized that “international law has repeatedly acknowledged the principle of domestic law that a company has a legal personality distinct from that of its shareholders.” Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, Judgment I.C.J. November 30, 2010, para.155 373