59 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. While it will not revisit all the considerations mentioned earlier, the Commission would point out that this process was conducted in secret, outside the boundaries of the clear framework of laws in place, and RCTV’s right to be heard and to offer evidence was not respected. Thus, in keeping with this report’s findings in the section on freedom of expression and equality before the law, the Commission finds that the administrative procedure that ended in the decision not to renew RCTV’s concession violated the State’s obligations under Article 8 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the shareholders, executives and 264 employees of RCTV who are victims in the instant case. 2. The court challenge of the decision not to renew the concession 191. The petitioners are alleging a number of violations related to the court proceedings instituted to challenge the non-renewal of RCTV’s concession or suspend the effects of that decision. They basically recount that the petition of amparo filed on February 9, 2007 was not decided within a reasonable period, that the administrative law remedy seeking nullification and the petitions seeking injunctive relief have not been decided within a reasonable period, and that the authority called upon to decide the issue of nullification is neither independent nor impartial. 192. As was shown in the section on established facts, on February 9, 2007, a group of executives, journalists and other employees of RCTV filed a petition seeking amparo relief with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court. The petition was filed against the President of the 265 Republic and the MPPTI, and alleged an imminent, immediate and possible violation of their rights to freedom of expression, due process, equality and non-discrimination. The petition of amparo alleged that the respondents had prevented RCTV from being able to exercise: i) the right to a hearing to freely state its allegations; ii) administrative due process, and iii) its right to obtain a decision on its request for an extension or renewal of its concession, delivered by an impartial body on the basis of law. The petitioners point out that “the Constitutional Chamber took more than 90 days to decide the question of the petition’s admissibility, which is a flagrant violation of domestic law, which sets three days as the deadline for 266 deciding the question of admissibility; it is thus also a violation […] of Article 25 of the Convention.” 193. The Commission observes that, in fact, the Constitutional Chamber did not rule on the 267 admissibility of the petition seeking amparo relief until May 17, 2007, more than three months after it was filed. The Commission recalls, as has the Court, that Venezuelan law, specifically the 1988 Organic Law on Amparo for Constitutional Rights and Guarantees, provides that a petition for amparo relief is a 268 rapid remedy for alleged violations of human rights. That law states that it is a “brief, summary and 264 Marcel Granier, Peter Bottome, Jaime Nestares, Jean Nestares, Fernando Nestares, Alicia Phelps de Tovar, Francisco J. Nestares, Edgardo Mosca, Anani Hernández, Inés Bacalao, José Simón Escalona, Odila Rubin, Oswaldo Quintana, Eduardo Sapene, Eladio Lárez, Daniela Bergami, Isabel Valero, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, Soraya Castellano, María Arriaga and Larissa Patiño. 265 Annex 73, Petition seeking amparo relief filed with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court on February 9, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 107. 266 Annex 1, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, p. 180. 267 Annex 76, Supreme Court, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0197, Inadmissibility decision of May 17, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 109. 268 Cf. I/A Court H.R.. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes) v.Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, paragraphs 155 and 156. The relevant part of the 1988 Organic Law on Amparo for Constitutional Rights and Guarantees, available [in Spanish] at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/legislacion/loadgc.html, reads as follows: Article 22.- the Court hearing a petition seeking amparo relief shall have the authority to restore the violated right, foregoing purely procedural considerations and without any type of preliminary inquiry. In such a case, the writ of amparo shall be reasoned and shall be based on evidence that constitutes a strong presumption of the violation or threat of violation. Continúa…