6 22. The petitioners assert that between May 10 and 24, 2007, another ten petitions of constitutional amparo were filed by RCTV, its executives, journalists, employees, and by third parties such as nongovernmental organizations. They allege that those petitions sought to keep RCTV operating as a television channel. The petitioners assert that nine of the ten petitions were delayed by the Constitution Court, after which it declared all ten to be inadmissible in limine litis, before any proceedings ever got underway and before any examination of the merits of the petitions. 23. The petitioners allege that on April 17, 2007, a group of RCTV executives, journalists and staff filed a remedy under administrative law seeking nullification of the administrative decision delivered in Resolution No. 002 and Communication No. 0424. That remedy was brought in conjunction with a petition for injunctive relief or, failing that, an unspecified protective measure in order to ensure that RCTV would continue broadcasting under the same conditions until the merits of the petition were examined. The petitioners observe that on May 22, 2007, the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court agreed to hear the petition seeking nullification of Resolution No. 002 but dismissed the petition for injunctive relief; it did not even address the petition seeking an unspecified protective measure. The petitioners’ contention is that the decision held, inter alia, that the alleged victims’ freedom of expression had not been violated, since there were other media outlets through which the journalists could express their ideas and opinions and from which the public could obtain the corresponding information. They further contend that in this decision, the Political-Administrative Chamber: i) proceeded to threaten to penalize the attorneys representing RCTV and the petitioners on the grounds that their suit contained statements that were insulting to and disrespectful of high-ranking officials, among them the President of the Republic, and ii) made observations obiter dictum on the possibility that the broadcast station’s equipment might revert to the State once the concession had expired. The petitioners contend that on October 9, 2007, the evidentiary phase of the proceedings got underway, and was still in progress in August 2011. 24. The petitioners also state that in the context of the remedy filed under administrative law, on June 5, 2007 the Political Administrative Chamber ordered that a separate case file be opened for the request seeking unspecified injunctive relief, which it then proceeded to declare out of order on July 31, 2007. The petitioners contend that when new facts came to light, the alleged victims filed new petitions on November 29, 2007, May 27, 2008 and May 21, 2009, seeking unspecified injunctive relief. The Political Administrative Chamber declared the first two petitions inadmissible; in the case of the third petition, as of August 2011 the Political-Administrative Chamber had not yet opened the corresponding separate case file. 25. The petitioners assert that on May 31, 2007, RCTV filed its objection to the injunctive relief that the Constitutional Chamber had ordered on May 25, 2007 in Case 07-0720, and asked that the injunctive relief be revoked. The petitioners claim the following with respect to the action taken on this petition: i) on June 13, 2007, RCTV filed a brief presenting evidence in the special evidentiary hearing regarding the objection; ii) on May 22, 2008, RCTV petitioned the Court to declare that there was no longer an interest in pursuing the proceedings, to revoke the injunctive relief, and to close the case; iii) on May 22, 2008, the complainants requested that a date be set for a preliminary hearing, and iv) on June 12, 2008, RCTV confirmed its petitions asking the Court to declare that there was no longer an interest in pursuing the proceedings; it also confirmed its objection to the injunctive relief and asked that a decision be made with respect to that injunctive relief before the preliminary hearing. According to the petitioners, as of August 2011, the Constitutional Chamber had not yet decided any of the petitions filed by RCTV and had not convened the hearing requested by the complainants. As for the second suit seeking protection of collective and diffuse interests (Case No. 07-0731), the petitioners contend that RCTV also filed an objection and, on May 31, 2007, a request that evidence be produced; as of June 2011, that request had not yet been decided. The petitioners also assert that on May 28, 2007, the parties who filed this second suit dropped their claim and that on June 1, 2007, the Constitutional Chamber refused to give its approval to the request to drop the case, on the grounds of public interest. In that same decision, the Constitutional Chamber decided to join Case No. 07-0731 and Case No. 07-0720. 26. The petitioners contend that the proceedings that resulted in the seizure of RCTV’s facilities and equipment were complex and unprecedented. For that reason, on December 10, 2007 the