60 effective” remedy and provides that the courts shall give “preference to processing petitions for amparo 269 relief over all other matters.” 194. In the case sub examine, it is clear that the formalities prescribed by Venezuelan law for petitions of amparo were not observed. Nor can it be claimed that the decision delivered three months 270 after the petition was filed, was the prompt recourse required under Article 25(1) of the Convention. The Court has held that amparo remedies will be illusory and ineffective if there is unjustified delay in 271 reaching a decision on them. Here it is worth noting that in this case the failure to observe the deadline prescribed by law had a real and serious effect, since while the decision on the petition of amparo was still pending, in violation of Venezuelan law, the MPPTI issued, on March 29, 2007, Communication No. 0424 in which it announced that RCTV’s concession would not be renewed. As has been shown, this decision was the result of a process that violated even the most fundamental guarantees of due process, wrongs that the petition of amparo filed on February 9, 2007 might have prevented. In other words, the delay in deciding the petition of amparo was not only a violation of Venezuelan law, but also had the effect of enabling the consummation of the very violations that the petition of amparo was intended to prevent. The petitioners indicated that “the Chamber waited until the violation of our rights had been formally consummated and then denied us justice and forced us to file the action seeking nullification of a 272 measure that the writ of amparo, had it been granted, should have prohibited.” The Commission therefore considers that the delay in deciding the petition of amparo violated the right to “simple and prompt recourse […] for protection against acts that violate [one’s] fundamental rights,” as provided under Article 25(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of the shareholders, executives and employees who 273 jointly filed the petition seeking amparo relief. 195. The Commission applies these same standards in analyzing the petition seeking injunctive relief and, failing that, the petition seeking unspecified injunctive relief that was filed along with the administrative-law petition seeking nullification of the government’s decision not to renew RCTV’s concession. As has been established, this petition was filed on April 17, 2007, in conjunction with the petition seeking nullification. The Supreme Court’s Political-Administrative Chamber declared the petition seeking amparo relief to be inadmissible on May 22, 2007; the same court declared the petition for unspecified injunctive relief to be out of order on July 31, 2007. …continuación Article 23. If the judge opts not to immediately restore the violated right pursuant to the preceding article, he or she shall order the authority, entity, social organization or private parties accused of violating or threatening to violate the constitutional right or guarantee, to file, within forty-eight (48) hours from the time of notification, a report on the alleged violation or threat that prompted the filing of the petition. Failure to report shall be understood as tacit acceptance of the facts alleged. Article 26.- Within the ninety-six (96) hours following the presentation of the report by the alleged perpetrator or once the corresponding period has run its course, the judge hearing the petition of amparo shall set the date for the parties or their legal representatives to present their respective arguments in oral, public proceedings. Once that hearing is held, the judge shall have twenty-four (24) hours in which to decide the petition for constitutional amparo. That period is not subject to extension. 269 1988 Organic Law of Amparo for Constitutional Rights and Guarantees, arts. 4, 13, available [in Spanish] at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/legislacion/loadgc.html. 270 Cf. I/A Court H.R.. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, paragraph 156. 271 Cf. I/A Court H.R.. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, paragraph 134. 272 273 Annex 1, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, p. 85. In the petition of amparo, RCTV represented the shareholders and all the executives and employees of RCTV who are victims in the present case, with the exception of Eladio Lárez. The victims of this violation are, therefore, the following: Marcel Granier, Peter Bottome, Jaime Nestares, Jean Nestares, Fernando Nestares, Alicia Phelps de Tovar, Francisco J. Nestares, Edgardo Mosca, Anani Hernández, Inés Bacalao, José Simón Escalona, Odila Rubin, Oswaldo Quintana, Eduardo Sapene, Daniela Bergami, Isabel Valero, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, Soraya Castellano, María Arriaga and Larissa Patiño. See Annex 73, Petition of Amparo filed with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, February 9, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 107.