7 attorneys for RCTV filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the Superior Prosecutor for the Metropolitan Caracas Area, requesting that a criminal investigation be instituted for property crimes and other offenses criminalized under the Anti-Corruption Law. On July 28, 2008, the 51st Preliminary Examining Court of First Instance of the Metropolitan Caracas Criminal Court Circuit ordered the investigation closed on the grounds that the acts being investigated were not criminal in nature. RCTV filed an appeal of this decision, which the Fifth Chamber of the Appellate Court of the Metropolitan Caracas Criminal Court Circuit dismissed on October 10, 2008. According to the petitioners, RCTV filed a petition of cassation with the Supreme Court’s Chamber of Criminal Cassation to challenge the ruling, which was also dismissed on May 7, 2009. 27. The petitioners also point out that on April 10, 2007 Marcel Granier filed a complaint with the Office of the Superior Prosecutor of the Caracas Metropolitan Area, asking for an investigation into facts that would constitute the crimes of embezzlement, malfeasance of funds and abuse of office. They assert that the complaint, which was assigned to the Unit of the Sixth Prosecutor in the Public Prosecutor’s Office, with full nationwide jurisdiction, concerns the offenses and wrongs that officials of the national government committed against RCTV, its employees and attorneys, stemming from the public messages issued in July 2006 in connection with the review of RCTV’s concession and operating license. As of August 2011, that Prosecution Unit had not taken any measures to shed light on the facts denounced. 28. The petitioners also assert that between June 8, 2007 and May 26, 2009, RCTV presented five requests to CONATEL, asking, inter alia: i) that the property not affected by the Constitutional Chamber’s injunctions be handed over to RCTV; ii) that a mechanism be created to allow the television station to inspect its equipment, and iii) that it be provided a certified copy of the administrative record under which the concession was awarded to Televisora Venezolana Social (TVES). Their contention is that CONATEL never responded to RCTV’s requests. 29. Finally, the petitioners contend that since RCTV’s broadcasts stopped on May 28, 2007, it has sustained financial losses totaling US$1,042,508,988 (one billion, forty-two million, five hundred and eight thousand, nine hundred eighty-eight United States dollars). 30. For all the foregoing reasons, the petitioners are alleging that the Venezuelan State is responsible for violations of the rights protected under articles 8, 13, 21, 14 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the general obligations set forth in articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. They are, therefore, seeking a number of measures of reparation, among them that the State: fully restore the rights of the victims and of RCTV as a licensed concessionaire to operate as a television station; that the alleged victims be fully compensated for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages they have allegedly sustained; that the shareholders’ right to property ownership be fully redressed, and that the domestic legal system on the subject of termination and renewal of concessions to broadcasting outlets be adapted to conform to international human rights obligations. B. The State’s position 1. Legal framework 31. To provide context, the State lays out the chronological development of the telecommunications concessions regimen in Venezuela starting with the concessions provided for in the Telegraph and Telephone Act of 1918 through the 2000 Organic Telecommunications Law, in force at the 4 time of the facts of this case. It indicates that the latter allows for administrative authorization of the use and exploitation of the broadcast spectrum, which can include: broadcasting, general use, orbital 4 The State holds forth on laws and regulations such as the Foreign Cable Communications Act of 1927, the Telecommunications Services Regulations of 1932, broadcasting regulation 194, the 1936 telecommunications law, the 1937 broadcasting regulations, the 1941 Radio Communications Regulation, and regulations on Concessions for Television and Radio Broadcasters of 1987, among others.