5 alleged purposes; that it could have used the three television stations it already had or resorted to the extreme of requiring that the existing concessionaires hand over shares of their frequencies. The petitioners emphasized the fact that other television stations had concessions that were good until May 27, 2007, but were not restricted in any way. They specifically mention that Venevisión was the same type of business as RCTV, with the same technical operating capability and legal status. However, because Venevisión had changed its editorial line, the State renewed its concession. 18. The petitioners also allege that on May 22, 2007, members of audience groups unaffiliated with RCTV filed a joint petition of amparo with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court seeking injunctive relief against the MPPTI and other state entities (Case No. 07-0720). The petitioners maintain that the petition asked the Court to order the National Executive to take the necessary measures to ensure that the coverage of the Venezuelan Public Television Foundation (Fundación Televisora Venezolana – TVes), which was set to begin broadcasting on May 28, 2007 on the frequency once assigned to RCTV, would be the same as the coverage of RCTV. The petitioners contend that on May 25, 2007, the Constitutional Chamber agreed to hear the petition, which it described as a suit seeking “protection of diffuse and collective interests.” Also, in response to the petitioners’ request, the Chamber ordered injunctive relief under which the use of the broadcasting assets owned by RCTV and its shareholders, specifically transmission stations, antennas, repeaters and other equipment throughout the national territory, would be temporarily assigned to CONATEL. According to the petitioners, these assets are currently being used by TVes. 19. The petitioners maintain that on May 24, 2007, a second group of persons, also unrelated to RCTV, filed a suit for protection of collective and diffuse interests (Case No. 07-0731) against the President of the Republic and the MPPTI, because of their decision not to renew RCTV’s concession. They contend that the purpose of this suit was to ensure that RCTV’s broadcasting was not interrupted, so as to safeguard the Venezuelan citizenry’s right to freedom of expression and information. The petitioners maintain that on May 25, 2007, the Constitutional Chamber agreed to examine the suit, but declared it inadmissible with respect to President Chávez. The Constitutional Chamber also decided to grant injunctive relief on its own initiative, under the same terms established in the case classified as Record No. 07-0720. According to the petitioners, the Constitutional Chamber decided to join cases No. 07-0731 and No. 07-0720. They emphasize the fact that those decisions directly affected the assets owned by RCTV, even though it was not a party to those cases and was not formally notified of the decisions. 20. Given the aforementioned government and court orders, the petitioners point out that on May 27, 2007, the court authorities executed the injunctive relief, and RCTV’s assets were assigned to CONATEL. The petitioners allege that, in addition to the equipment listed in the injunctions, the State also seized other assets that were inside RCTV’s facilities. They also point out that on May 28, 2007, RCTV’s signal went silent; immediately thereafter, TVes started broadcasting its programming on the channel once used by RCTV. 21. The petitioners allege that reacting to the threats that RCTV’s concession would not be renewed, on February 9, 2007 a group of executives, journalists and other staff of the television station filed a petition with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court seeking amparo relief against the President of the Republic and the MPPTI. The parties filing the petition alleged that their rights to freedom of expression, due process, equality and nondiscrimination were in jeopardy. According to the petitioners, on April 2, 2007, following the adoption of Resolution No. 002 and issuance of Communication No. 0424, the alleged victims reframed their original petition seeking amparo relief with a view to refuting the terms of Resolution No. 002. The petitioners assert that in a May 17, 2007 ruling, the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Chamber declared the petition seeking amparo relief to be inadmissible, on the grounds that amparo was an extraordinary remedy and that the proper means to challenge the administrative decision would be a remedy under administrative law seeking nullification of the resolution. The Court wrote that the administrative-law petition could be coupled with a request seeking injunctive relief. According to the petitioners, the reasons or grounds for the decision were not stated and the legal deadlines for deciding petitions of amparo were not observed.