13 freedom of expression of the alleged victims was not violated as there are other media through which the journalists can express their ideas." 63. The State indicates that the contentious administrative writ of nullification is still before the Political Administrative Court of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice. In this regard, it argues that there has been no unjustified delay, as only four years have passed since it was submitted. It indicates that constitutional doctrine establishes that a case that has been before the Supreme Tribunal of Justice for four years cannot be considered to be experiencing judicial delay. 64. With regard to the alleged violation of the rights of the journalists to freedom of expression, it finds that they are working for other media outlets in the country. With regard to the alleged financial damages caused to RCTV shareholders, it argues that they know that concessions come to an end, and that in the 50 years during which RCTV was operating commercially, its shareholders saw many millions in earnings. 65. The State argues that on May 25, 2007, the Supreme Tribunal of Justice granted the injunction sought by a group of user committees against RCTV. It indicates that this ruling seeks to protect the collective and diffuse interests of users of television services, guaranteeing their constitutional and legal rights to receive objective, timely and true information through the media. For this reason, the situation of RCTV's property is under very special judicial protection with which collective interests and the general interest of the Venezuelan population are guaranteed. With regard to the alleged material losses, the State says it is false that any equipment has been damaged while in its possession, as the State is using this equipment currently to broadcast Televisora Venezolana Social. Likewise, it indicates that the Compañía Red de Transmisiones de Venezuela (REDTVC.A.) is in charge of maintaining the broadcasting systems of the Venezuelan Public Media Network. 66. As far as the allegation that RCTV was treated differently than Venevisión by the State because of its editorial stance, the State argues that a violation of the right to equality cannot be argued because in addition to Venevisión, the State also decided to renew the concessions of Televen and VTV. IV. FACTS ESTABLISHED A. Radio Caracas Televisión RCTV, C.A., its shareholders, executives and journalists 67. RCTV operated as a free-to-air, VHF (very high frequency) television station with 7 nationwide coverage since 1953. The station carried entertainment, news and opinion programs whose editorial line was critical of the government of President Chávez. RCTV has been singled out by high government officials as one of the private television stations that played an active political role in national upheavals in Venezuela, such as the coup d’état and the work stoppage in April and December 2002, 8 respectively. Before it went off the air, it was the only television channel with nationwide coverage whose 9 editorial line was critical of the Venezuelan government. At the time it went off the air as a free-to-air 10 television station, it was broadcasting its news program “El Observador” three times a day. 7 Annex 2, License authorizing RCTV to operate as a free-to-air VHF television station, issued by the Office of the Director of Telecommunications of the Ministry of Communications. Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 22. 8 I/A Court H.R., Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009, Series C No. 194, paragraph 128; IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Venezuela, paragraphs 79, 81, 372 and 373. Transcript of the program “Aló Presidente”, No. 107, June 9, 2002, page 19, available at: http://www.alopresidente.gob.ve/materia_alo/25/1663/?desc=alo_presidente_107_desde_el_chivo_zulia_venezuela.pdf; IACHR, Application in the Case of Ríos et al. vs.Venezuela, April 20, 2007, para. 72. 9 Annex 1, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, p. 7. A fact not contested by the State. 10 Annex 1, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, p. 7. A fact not contested by the State.