Inadmissibility in a case of censorship (freedom of expression) and the right to participate in public affairs

Facts

The authors are Venezuelan nationals, O.R.C.H., T.G., and S.A.A.M., representing legal and journalist organizations. They claim Venezuela violated their rights under the Covenant by targeting the NTN24 news channel during the 2014 protests, citing government actions such as suspending the channel and blocking its web pages without legal process, under the guise of preventing unrest. Their legal challenges were ignored, reflecting a broader suppression of freedom of expression through intimidation, control over telecommunications, and digital blackouts, aimed at silencing dissent and controlling information.

The authors claim Venezuela violated their rights under the Covenant by censoring the NTN24 news channel, infringing on their freedom of expression (article 19) and the right to participate in public affairs (article 25). They argue this censorship lacked legal justification, necessary oversight, and proportionality. They also criticize Venezuela’s media regulation laws for fostering self-censorship and a State media monopoly, further stifling democratic discourse. Despite legal efforts to challenge these actions, they faced delays and a lack of judicial response, constituting a denial of justice. The authors, representing themselves and associated civil society organizations, argue these actions have directly impacted their ability to engage in and inform public discourse, violating their Covenant rights.

Admissibility

The Committee considered the admissibility of a case against Venezuela, focusing on whether the authors, involved in freedom of expression associations and impacted by actions against the NTN24 channel, had standing as victims. Although the State argued the authors were not direct victims, the Committee recognized their special role in society and their impacted watchdog function. However, the Committee found the communication inadmissible because the authors had not exhausted all domestic remedies, specifically failing to file a constitutional amparo application, a remedy available for restoring rights before violations occurred. Consequently, the communication was declared inadmissible under the Optional Protocol.