62 199. The administrative law remedy seeking nullification of Resolution No. 002 and Communication No. 0424 was filed with the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court on April 17, 2007. According to the information available to the Commission, the decision on that remedy 281 was still pending on the date of adoption of the present report. To determine whether this period is reasonable, the Commission, like the Court, takes the following criteria into account: i) the complexity of the matter; ii) the procedural activity of the interested party; iii) the behavior of the judicial authorities; and 282 iv) the effect on the legal situation of the persons involved in the process. 200. The Commission observes that in principle, it is up to the Venezuelan State to explain – based on the criteria listed above- why the Political-Administrative Chamber has required the time 283 elapsed since April 17, 2007 to adopt a decision on the remedy seeking nullification. The State indicated in this regard that “only four years have passed” and “this is the highest Tribunal of the Republic, which gives preference to collective priorities. The case of RCTV is an individual case, although 284 the executives wish to present it as a collective problem, manipulating journalists." The State concludes that "taking into account the number of cases that the Supreme Tribunal of Justice receives, we cannot 285 state that a judicial delay has taken place." 201. The Commission observes that the State’s arguments, which primarily make reference to the Supreme Tribunal of Justice’s workload, do not address the four factors that the Commission uses for analyzing the reasonableness of a period of time for resolving a case. The Commission will thus analyze these factors in light of the available evidence. First, as was shown in the section on established facts, the nullification petition that RCTV filed alleges violation of seven constitutional rights and that the decisions were fatally flawed and illegal on eight different grounds. So many allegations undoubtedly involved a certain degree of complexity when the time came to decide the case, although none of the points raised by RCTV would appear to require an especially demanding fact-finding investigation, with the possible exception of the arguments concerning the availability of frequencies other than RCTV’s to accomplish 286 the objectives of the National Telecommunications Plan. As for the interested parties’ procedural activity, the available information does not suggest that the litigants engaged in any activity that would 287 have caused an unwarranted delay in processing the petition. Their interventions in the proceedings included the offer of evidence, an appeal of the ruling declaring certain evidence inadmissible, and the 288 filing of three more petitions seeking unspecified injunctive relief. While their involvement was active, there is nothing to suggest that it was frivolous. As for the conduct of the judicial authorities, the IACHR observes the long delays in settling the procedural issues necessary for the case to move forward. The court took from October 23, 2007 to March 6, 2008 to deliver its ruling on the admissibility of the evidence offered by the parties. Both parties appealed this ruling; a decision on those appeals has been pending 289 since June 26, 2008; in the meantime, the proceedings have been suspended. In the interim, the 281 Annex 79, Report on the procedural status of the petitions and requests filed by RCTV, Communication from the petitioners received on August 5, 2011, Attachment 13, p. 9. Information not contested by the State. 282 Cf. I/A Court H.R.. Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011 Series C No. 233, paragraph 174. [translation ours]. 283 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 172. 284 Annex 72, State Communication received on December 4, 2011. 285 Annex 72, State Communication received on December 4, 2011. 286 Annex 16, Administrative-law Petition for Nullification, filed with the Supreme Court’s Political-Administrative Chamber on April 17, 2007, pp. 47-54, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 110. 287 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 174; Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011 Series C No. 233, paragraph 177. 288 Annex 79, Report on the procedural status of the petitions and requests filed by RCTV, July 28, 2011, Communication from the petitioners received on August 5, 2011, Attachment 13, pp. 9-14. 289 Annex 79, Report on the procedural status of the petitions and requests filed by RCTV, July 28, 2011, Communication from the petitioners received on August 5, 2011, Attachment 13, p. 11. Information not contested by the State.