54 172. As has been established, on May 25, 2007, in conjunction with two petitions seeking amparo relief in connection with the non-renewal of RCTV’s concession, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court ordered injunctive relief by temporarily assigning to CONATEL the use of certain 233 assets belonging to RCTV, such as transmitters, antennas and towers. The Constitutional Chamber reasoned, inter alia, that when it took over the frequency previously assigned to RCTV, the TVes “might not have the infrastructure necessary for nationwide broadcasting of the same quality and under the same terms as the service heretofore provided” and that the State had an obligation to ensure delivery of a universal public telecommunications service; it held, therefore, that in exercise of its “broad investigative authorities” and its power to “decide in favor of injunctive relief, it was ordering the “temporary” 234 assignment of RCTV’s equipment to CONATEL. The Chamber clarified that the measures ordered did not imply “an infringement of any property rights that Radio Caracas Televisión, C.A. might have to that 235 infrastructure or equipment.” The injunction was executed on May 27 and 28, 2007, when the assets specified in the court rulings were transferred to CONATEL, along with other objects not mentioned in the 236 ruling. As of the adoption of this report, the property in question is still in the State’s possession. 173. The petitioners are alleging that the seizure of the assets was “clearly in violation of the law, as it is not permitted in any legal provision”; they pointed that the “Organic Telecommunications Law of Venezuela does not in any way authorize private property to be impounded, confiscated or to revert back to the State.” They contend that the seizure of RCTV’s assets was the result of a “judicial ambush” and is “a confiscatory act contrary to the Constitution, to the American Convention and international law in 237 general.” The State for its part defends the ruling of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, indicating that the ruling “seeks to protect the collective and diffuse interests of users of television services, guaranteeing 238 their constitutional and legal rights to receive objective, timely and true information through the media.” The State also highlights that “it is false that any equipment has been damaged while in State hands, as 239 the State is using this equipment currently to broadcast Televisora Venezolana Social.” 174. effect that: The Inter-American Commission recalls the finding of the Inter-American Court to the In order for the deprivation of the property of a person to be compatible with the right to property embodied in the Convention, it should be based on reasons of public utility or social interest, subject to the payment of just compensation, and be restricted to the cases and according to the 240 forms established by law. 175. The Court has examined and applied the concept of “deprivation” of property not just in 241 cases of formal expropriation, but also in cases involving temporary impoundment of assets as part of a 233 Annex 64, Supreme Court, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0720, Decision No. 956 of April 25, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 78. Annex 65, Supreme Court, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0731, Decision No. 957 of April 25, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 78. 234 Annex 64, Supreme Court, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0720, Decision No. 956 of April 25, 2007, pp. 13, 14, 20, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 78. 235 Annex 64, Supreme Court, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0720, Decision No. 956 of April 25, 2007, p. 20, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 78. 236 Annexes 66-69, Records of Execution of Supreme Court Judgment and Inventories of Assets dated May 27 and 28, 2007, in connection with the Constitutional Chamber’s Decision No. 956 of May 25, 2007. Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 79. 237 Annex 1, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, 48. 238 Annex 72, State Communication received on December 4, 2011. 239 Annex 72, State Communication received on December 4, 2011. 240 I/A Court H.R., Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, paragraph 128. 241 Cf. I/A Court H.R.. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, paragraphs 48 et seq.