the following reasons, among others: i) RCTV was not entitled to preferential treatment for extension of the concession; ii) there were no grounds to adapt RCTV’s licenses to the new system of LOTEL; and iii) there was no need to examine the evidence presented by RCTV. The petitioners contend that the decision did not take the provisions of the LOTEL into account and, moreover, applied some provisions of Decree No. 1,577 but not the provision allowing extension of the concession. The petitioners argue that in order to clothe his decision in legal trappings, Minister Escamillo claimed that it was based on the new National Telecommunications Plan. They observe that through Resolution No. 002 of March 28, 2007 –purportedly based on the State’s new telecommunications policy-, Minister Escamillo declared that the application for renewal of RCTV’s licenses had lapsed for failure to state a purpose; he therefore put an end to the corresponding administrative procedure. 15. However, the petitioners contend that this so-called plan was never proposed or publicly discussed, and had never been cited as grounds for refusing to renew RCTV’s concession. They maintain that other frequencies were available that the State could have used to accomplish its stated 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 equal shares of their frequencies. The petitioners observe that the concessions of other television stations were set to expire on May 27, 2007, but they were not subjected to any type of restriction. They mention in particular that channel 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. 16. The petitioners also allege that in May 2007, persons unaffiliated with RCTV filed a petition with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court seeking amparo relief and injunctive relief against the MPPTI and other state entities, because of the decision not to renew RCTV’s frequency. The purpose of that legal action was to ensure that RCTV’s broadcasting was not interrupted. The legal action was brought for the sake of protecting the Venezuelan citizenry’s right to freedom of expression and information. The petitioners state that at 6:00 p.m. on May 25, 2007, the Constitutional Chamber agreed to admit the case “for protection of diffuse and collective interests” and to order injunctive relief ex officio. The petitioners point out that the Constitutional Chamber believed that it had to guarantee continuity in the use of RCTV’s frequency, while preserving the clarity and coverage of the transmissions. To that end, in those injunctions, the Court ordered that use of the broadcasting assets owned by RCTV and its shareholders, specifically its transmission stations, antennas and repeaters throughout the national territory, be temporarily turned over to CONATEL. According to the petitioners, these assets were to be used by Venezuelan Social Television Foundation [Fundación Televisora Venezolana Social (TEVES)], which would begin broadcasting its programming on May 28, 2007, using the frequency assigned to RCTV. The petitioners underscore the fact that the decision was delivered without having heard from the affected parties. They state further that this same injunction was ordered in two other amparo cases to protect diffuse and collective interests, cases filed on May 22 and 24, 2007 by persons unrelated to RCTV. Those two cases were also filed to avoid the station’s shutdown. On May 27, 2007 the judicial authorities carried out the injunction order and the RCTV assets were turned over to CONATEL. The petitioners allege that in addition to the equipment specifically mentioned in the injunctions, the State also seized other RCTV assets that were located in its facilities. 17. The petitioners state that as a result of these administrative and court orders, RCTV’s signal went silent on May 28, 2007. They contend that immediately thereafter, TEVES began transmitting its programming on the channel previously used by RCTV. 18. The petitioners allege that in reaction to the threats that RCTV’s license 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, when the MPPTI adopted Resolution No. 002 and issued Communication No. 0424, the petition seeking amparo relief had not yet been decided. Therefore, on April 2, 2007, the alleged victims reframed their original petition seeking amparo 4