31 107 and Communication No. 0424. The plaintiffs alleged that the decisions being challenged were unconstitutional, constituted violations of the right to freedom of thought and expression, the right to due process, the right of defense and the right to a hearing by an impartial authority; the right to the guarantee of the non-retroactivity of the law; the right to equality; the right to economic freedom and the right to private property. They argued that the administrative decisions were fatally flawed and unlawful by virtue of: i) a violation of the principle of the hierarchy of laws and the singular non-derogability of regulations; ii) violation of general principles of law; iii) subjective lack of competence; iv) an unlawful purpose; v) a false premise; vi) abuse of power; vii) a complete and absolute absence of procedure; and viii) a violation of the legal obligation set forth in Article 210 of LOTEL to transform RCTV’s license and concession. In their brief, the plaintiffs also requested injunctive relief or, failing that, unspecified protective injunctions. Specifically, they asked the competent court to order the MPPTI: i) to refrain from taking any decision that might prevent RCTV from broadcasting its programming until such time as a definitive decision on the merits was taken, and ii) to take the necessary measures to ensure that the station continue to operate at the same frequencies nationwide, until a definitive decision had been delivered on their petition. 101. On May 22, 2007, the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court agreed to hear the petition seeking nullification, but declared the petition seeking injunctive relief to be inadmissible and did not address the request for an unspecified protective injunction. The decision to dismiss the petition seeking injunctive relief held that freedom of thought and expression “is not absolute, since it must be exercised within the boundaries of certain values and constitutional principles.” The Court wrote that “under Article 113 of the Constitution, in the case of the exploitation of natural resources which are the property of the Nation –as in the case of the radio electric spectrum- […] the State may grant concessions for a certain period, in all cases ensuring the existence of adequate consideration or compensation to serve the public interest.” As the Chamber observed, “in principle, plaintiffs may exercise their right to freedom of thought and expression using the radio electric frequency assigned to RCTV only for as long as the concession is in effect […] which in no way implies a supposed violation of that right, since plaintiffs are free to impart their ideas, opinions and information through the many other media outlets.” The Chamber also observed that: i) to examine the alleged violations of the rights to due process, to defense, to the non-retroactivity of the law, to private property and to economic freedom, the Chamber would have to do a detailed examination of the administrative procedures whose decisions are being challenged, which would be part of the merits phase of the petition for nullification; ii) plaintiffs have to demonstrate the alleged violation of the principle of presumption of innocence, as the decisions that plaintiffs are challenging did not impose any penalty on RCTV; and iii) as for the alleged violation of the right to equality and non-discrimination, RCTV failed to demonstrate the equality of circumstances it claimed to have vis-à-vis the other operators or the discrimination it claimed to suffer. That interlocutory decision added an obiter dictum to the effect that “once the concession has expired, the relationship is extinguished and it is normal that the assets directly or indirectly used to provide the public service that operates on the basis of that concession should revert to the State.” The Political-Administrative Chamber also observed that the brief with which the petition was filed contained “notions that could be considered offensive to and disrespectful of persons and public institutions […] referring to messages of hate and repudiations of the communications media and journalists.” However, Chamber stated that for the sake of ensuring access to justice, it would not take those remarks into account for purposes of the petition’s 108 admissibility. 102. On May 24, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a brief with the Political-Administrative Chamber underscoring the urgency of the case and requesting a decision on their request for unspecified injunctive 107 Annex 16, Administrative-law petition seeking nullification, filed with the Supreme Court’s Political-Administrative Chamber, April 17, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 110. Among those filing the petition was RCTV, representing its shareholders, as well as the following alleged victims: Marcel Granier, Eladio Lárez, Daniela Bergami, Edgardo Mosca, Anani Hernández, Inés Bacalao, José Simón Escalona, Isabel Valero, Odila Rubin, Oswaldo Quintana, Eduardo Sapene, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, Soraya Castellano, María Arriaga and Larissa Patiño. 108 Annex 77, Supreme Court of Justice, Political-Administrative Chamber, Case No. 07-0411, Decision of May 22, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 111.