27 The consequences of the loss of an administrative file may be considered from two angles: first, if the file is being processed and second, if it has already been closed. In the latter case, there is an administrative act that enjoys the presumption of legality and right of execution and all the other classic presumptions that administrative law recognizes; therefore, reconstructing it cannot generate any great consequences. The Administrative Procedures Law establishes sanctions for the loss of files, although none were ordered in this case. On April 24, 1998, the Constitutional Court concluded that the complaint filed by Mr. Ivcher was inadmissible, because the administrative remedies had not been exhausted. The “directorial resolution” that annulled the nationality title was the way to annul an administrative act and, in accordance with the law, when an administrative act is annulled, the administrative remedy is exhausted. On June 24, 1997, Resolution No. 399 of the Judiciary’s Executive Committee was published; it granted the Constitutional and Social Chamber of the Supreme Court the power to remove and appoint the judges of the public law chambers. This meant that, as of that time, jurisprudence was absolutely questionable, because there was no guarantee of effective legal protection. Owing to these appointments, the right to a natural judge was affected, because some of the competencies of the different courts were altered. In this context, it is important to remember that the resolution that annulled Mr. Ivcher’s nationality title was dated July 13, 1997. The Office of the Ombudsman published a report in which it concluded that the “directorial resolution” was null de jure, because it contradicted the Constitution and affected the right to nationality, inasmuch as there had not been any renunciation; therefore, it violated the principle of legality and generated legal uncertainty. This report was transmitted to the Ministry of the Interior, but had no effect other than providing information on the antecedents to the case. Moreover, the precautionary measure issued in favor of the Winter brothers granted them the administration of Channel 2, and, thereby, gave greater weight to the case. There was a legal excess, because, basically, the precautionary measure constituted a judgment. The legal provision that reserves the ownership of shares in television companies to nationals appears in Legislative Decree No. 702, in the context of the 1979 Constitution. Today, the 1993 Constitution is based on another conception; its article 63, places the investments and properties of foreigners and nationals in the same conditions. However, the previous norm subsists, because it has been recognized by a judgment of the Supreme Court, issued as a result of a popular action. This is not coherent with the Constitution in force. VII EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT 63. Before examining the evidence it has received, the Court will define its general criteria for the evaluation of evidence and will make some observations that are applicable to this specific case, most of which have been developed previously in the Court’s jurisprudence. 64. Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court stipulates that