Licensing / Media Regulation
The Case of Patrick Chitongo
In Progress Expands Expression
Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:
Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.
There is a Spanish language version of this case available. View Spanish version
Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) is a television broadcasting company in Venezuela that transmitted news coverage and opinion programs which were often critical of then President Hugo Chávez’s government. Chávez’s government accused RCTV on several occasions of being in favor of a coup and the destabilization of the Venezuelan government. Subsequently, RCTV’s license was not renewed. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights determined that the government of Venezuela denied RCTV’s license because of their critical views towards the government. The Court concluded that the state’s action was in contravention of Article 13 of the American Convention of Human Rights that guarantees the right to freedom of expression.
Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) is a Venezuelan television station that transmitted news coverage and opinion programs which were often critical of then President Hugo Chavez’s government. Following political turmoil in Venezuela between 2001 and 2002, high officials of the Venezuelan government maintained that RCTV supported the coup against President Chávez. The government also alleged that RCTV only covered the followers of the coup, but not the protests in favor of Chávez. RCTV’s license to operate its news station was scheduled to end in 2007. After Chavez was reinstated in power as Venezuela’s President in 2002, he began to make several expressions against RCTV.
In interviews and in live speeches, Chavez declared that RCTV was a television station that supported the coup, terrorism, and the destabilization of the Venezuelan government. [paras. 75-84] He also added that the Venezuelan government was the sole owner of the television airwaves and it could decide to grant or to deny an operating license. Prior to the expiration date of RCTV’s license, Chávez declared that it was the end of RCTV’s concession and that the decision was definitive. The agency in charge of granting telecommunications licenses did not renew RCTV’s license on two different occasions because they allegedly violated several provisions with regard to social responsibility in radio and television.
The government of Venezuela reiterated that the action taken against RCTV was constitutional given that they are the sole owners of the telecommunication airwaves and that the process had been done under the legal requirements. The government agency also established that it was the duty of the government of Venezuela to promote pluralism of content in the television airwaves. Moreover, they maintained that RCTV was not being sanctioned, but it was only a matter that its license had expired. After being denied, RCTV filed several actions against the agency in the Venezuelan courts stating that they had a preferential right to the concession. Finally, in 2010 RCTV filed a petition to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights. In 2013, the Commission submitted its report and the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
The judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights was delivered by President Judge Antonio Sierra Porto. The main issue before the Court was whether the Venezuelan government had violated RCTV’s representatives right to freedom of expression under Article 13 of the American Convention of Human Rights. The Court reasoned that if it was determined that the Venezuelan government had discriminated against RCTV, then this was sufficient evidence to hold that RCTV’s right to freedom of expression under Article 1.1 of the American Convention of Human Rights had been violated.
First, the Court considered all the applicable freedom of expression standards, specifically the Court’s interpretation of Article 13 of the American Convention of Human Rights (Pact of San José). Subsequently, the Court established that the right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 13 of the American Convention does not recognize legal entities, such as RCTV. However, media corporations are regarded as facilitators of freedom of expression and carry an important role in a democratic society. [para. 148] In this case, even though the broadcasting company was affected by a state action, it also affected the right to freedom of expression of the individuals that disseminated their ideas through the broadcasting company. [para. 148] Moreover, the Court considered that a state does have a prerogative to regulate its own broadcasting licensing process. In doing so, the state has the duty to protect the right to freedom of expression. [para. 165]
However, the Court determined that RCTV did not have a preferential right to the concession of a license. There is no evidence in Venezuelan domestic laws or in international law that an obligation exists which requires the state to renew a license to certain broadcasting companies. [para. 179] The Court however did not fully accept the state’s defense for not renewing RCTV’s license. The Venezuelan government submitted that the state’s objective in not renewing RCTV’s license was the protection of pluralism in the broadcasting media. [para. 188] The Court determined that from the evidence presented, which included declarations from government officials and the late President Chávez, the objective and purpose of denying RCTV’s license was to punish the company for expressing views that were critical to the government. [para. 189]
The Court considered that the decision to not renew RCTV’s license was taken before it expired and that the decision to not renew came directly from the Executive branch (the President). [para. 193] For these reasons, the Court concluded that the real government’s purpose in denying RCTV’s license was because of RCTV’s critical views towards the government and because of alleged irregularities. [para. 194] The Court added that it is not possible to violate the right to freedom of expression because of media’s critical views towards the government. The state has to guarantee the right to freedom of expression especially if the expression is not favorable to the government itself. [para. 194]
The Court established that the government abused its power when denying RCTV its license. The Court added that the abuse of power had an immediate negative effect on the exercise of freedom of expression. The people of Venezuela had been deprived of the editorial policy, which characterized RCTV because it was critical towards the government. [para. 198] The real reason behind the governments behavior, according to the Court, was to silence critics in contravention to the spirit of the right to freedom of expression, which are pluralism, tolerance, and openness. [para. 198]
Finally, the Court determined that the government discriminated against RCTV because of their political views in contravention of Article 1.1 of the American Convention. The Court reiterated that the state violated the right to freedom of expression and that the discrimination against RCTV could have a negative effect on other broadcasting companies that express views against the government. [para. 234-35] The Court granted reparations to the representatives of RCTV which ordered the government of Venezuela to: (1) reestablish RCTV’s concession (without recognizing that RCTV had an ownership claim to the concession) and return RCTV’s equipment; (2) create an open, transparent, and independent process to assign RCTV’s frequency; (3) publish a summary of the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in national newspapers; (4) take the necessary measures that all the processes regarding the concession of broadcasting licenses are open, transparent, and independent; and (5) pay compensation for material and immaterial damages. The Court also established that it would leave the case open for a year until the Venezuelan government complies with the judgment.
Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.
The decision of the court expands expression as it sets an important precedent regarding freedom of expression in the American continent. Many experts have agreed on the importance of this decision and how it guarantees that the right to freedom of expression will be protected in the American continent. The Court’s decision can be regarded as a breakthrough because it affirmed the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society and the duty of a state to protect all types of speeches even when it is not favorable to the current government.
Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.
Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.
The decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are binding on all State Members. In 2012, Venezuela rejected the jurisdiction of the Court, which entered in force on 2013. However, the Court established that it retained jurisdiction because the facts of the case were before Venezuela’s rejection.
Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.