relief with a view to refuting the terms of Resolution No. 002. They state that in a May 17, 2007 ruling, the Supreme Court declared the petition seeking amparo relief inadmissible. The petitioners report that according to the Supreme Court’s ruling in this matter, amparo was an extraordinary remedy; hence, the proper means to challenge the administrative decision would be a remedy under administrative law seeking nullification of the resolution (“Recurso Contencioso Administrativo de Nulidad”). That remedy could be coupled with a request seeking injunctive relief. According to the petitioners, the legal grounds for the decision were not stated and the legal deadlines for deciding petitions seeking amparo relief were not observed. 19. 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, and asked that until such time as a final decision was delivered on the merits of the complaint, the MPPTI should: i) refrain from taking any decision that would prevent RCTV from broadcasting its programming, and ii) take the necessary measures to ensure that the channel remains in operation on the same frequencies nationwide. The petitioners observe that on May 22, 2007, the Political-Administrative Law 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. The petitioners contend that the discovery phase of the suit began on October 9, 2007, and was still in progress in February 2010. Their contention is that this remedy has thus not been effective in ensuring court protection of the alleged victims’ rights, especially given the unwarranted delay in delivering a decision on the matter. This delay is the justification for applying the exception allowed under Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. 20. The petitioners allege further that on May 31, 2007, RCTV challenged the Constitutional Chamber’s decision of May 25, 2007, whereby it assigned CONATEL the right to use RCTV’s facilities and equipment. On June 13, 2007, RCTV filed a brief in which it asked to present arguments and evidence at the evidentiary hearing on the challenge. Nevertheless as of February 2010, the Supreme Court had not delivered any ruling on either the challenge or the request to offer evidence. Given the situation, the petitioners are alleging the presence of an unwarranted delay in that proceeding. They also point out that the executives, shareholders and other staff of RCTV were not summoned to appear in the proceedings in which the seizure of the station’s property was ordered; they were not even summoned to appear in the case of the possible challenge to the injunctions, and were prevented from participating in those proceedings as individual natural persons. They further maintain that only the legal person of RCTV, by virtue of its ownership of the seized assets, could challenge the corresponding injunction. They contend that because the interlocutory decrees and final judgments of the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Chamber cannot be appealed, the alleged victims had no way of filing an appeal or exercising any other remedy against the so-called injunctive relief. 21. The petitioners argue that the proceedings that resulted in the seizure of RCTV’s facilities and equipment were complex and rare. For that reason, on December 11, 2007 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 Court of First Instance with Oversight over 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 before with the Supreme Court’s Chamber of Criminal Cassation to challenge the ruling, which was also dismissed on May 7, 2009. 22. The petitioners also assert that between June 8, 2007 and May 26, 2009, RCTV filed five petitions before with CONATEL, requesting inter alia: i) that the property not affected by the 5