61 196. The Commission observes, as did the Inter-American Court, that the Supreme Court’s Political-Administrative Chamber has itself written that “the treatment given to the amparo action 274 exercised together with the petition for nullification of administrative acts must be reviewed” and agreed “to provide similar treatment to that applied in the case of other precautionary measures; therefore, once the main claim is admitted by the Chamber […] the appealed precautionary measure should be solved 275 forthwith.” In this connection, the Court wrote that under Venezuelan domestic law, the precautionary nature of the amparo petition filed together with the petition for nullification calls for temporary -though immediate- protection, given the nature of the harm caused. These circumstances allow for restoration of the affected legal situation to its status prior to the occurrence of the alleged violation, while a final 276 decision is rendered in the main judicial proceeding. 197. The petitioners make the point that the precautionary amparo or, failing that, the unspecified injunctive relief being sought must, under Venezuelan law, be decided within three working 277 days, an argument that the State has not contested. The Commission considers that notwithstanding the importance of meeting the legally-prescribed deadlines, the delay of over one month in deciding the petition seeking precautionary protection of constitutional rights and guarantees did not prejudice the victims’ access to justice given that it was resolved before the event it was meant to prevent, that is RCTV being removed from the air. In contrast, the more than three months’ delay in ruling on the petition seeking unspecified injunctive relief did strip the measure of any chance of efficacy since, by July 31, 2007, the government decision not to extend RCTV’s concession had already been enforced and RCTV was forced off the airwaves. The Commission therefore concludes that the failure to issue a prompt and 278 immediate ruling on the petition for unspecified injunctive relief that was filed in conjunction with the administrative-law remedy seeking nullification, violated Article 25(1) of the Convention, to the detriment 279 of RCTV’s shareholders, executives and employees who are victims in the present case. 198. Different considerations apply in the case of the nullification remedy which, although filed in conjunction with the petitions seeking precautionary protection, mentioned above, sought different ends. While amparo must be a “simple and prompt” recourse under Article 25 (1) of the Convention, the petition for nullification must be decided “within a reasonable time”, as provided in Article 8(1) of the 280 Convention. 274 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, paragraph 168, citing ruling No. 535 of the Political-Administrative Chamber of April 18, 2007, at 3841. 275 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, paragraph 168, citing ruling No. 535 of the Political-Administrative Chamber of April 18, 2007, at 3842 and 3843 . 276 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, paragraph 169, 277 Annex 1, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, p. 182, citing Article 19 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Court and Article 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 278 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, paragraph 171. 279 In the filing of the administrative-law petition for nullification and the petitions for precautionary amparo and unspecified injunctive relief, RCTV participated as representative of its shareholders and all the executives and employees of RCTV who are victims in the present case. The victims of this violation are, therefore, the following: 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, Eladio Lárez, Odila Rubin, Oswaldo Quintana, Eduardo Sapene, Daniela Bergami, Isabel Valero, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, Soraya Castellano, María Arriaga and Larissa Patiño. See Annex 16, Administrative-law Petition for Nullification, filed with the Supreme Court’s Political-Administrative Chamber on April 17, 2007, pp. 47-54, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 110. 280 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, paragraph 170.