64 293 294 May 27 and 28, 2007; on May 31, 2007, RCTV entered an objection to Decision No. 957. The cases that resulted from decisions No. 956 and No. 957 were subsequently joined by the Constitutional 295 Chamber. 206. The petitioners contend that three aspects of the judicial process that resulted in the seizure of RCTV’s property violated articles 8 and 25 of the Convention: the alleged violation of the right of defense in the proceedings that resulted in the injunctions; the alleged delay in issuing a ruling on the objection to the injunction; and the Supreme Court’s alleged lack of impartiality. The Commission will now examine each of these arguments. 207. As for the right of defense, the Commission observes that in that same decision in which RCTV’s property was assigned to CONATEL, the Constitutional Chamber ordered that a notice be published summoning interested parties who wished to intervene in the case, on either side or in defense of their own interests; it stated, however, that the intervening parties could only make arguments and offer 296 evidence in support of the position of the party with which the intervening parties sided. The petitioners make the point that this severely limited RCTV’s opportunities to defend itself, as it was not summoned to intervene in the proceedings that resulted in the injunctions or in any proceedings that might be held to challenge the injunctions. They pointed out that RCTV’s intervention could only be as an interested third party, and in that capacity it could only make arguments and offer evidence to support the position of one 297 of the parties, despite the fact that the injunctions mainly concerned RCTV’s own property. 208. The Court has held that the right of defense requires that the State at all times regard the 298 individual as a true subject of the proceeding, in the fullest sense, and not simply as its object. While this concept has been examined more frequently in connection with criminal proceedings, the right of defense is one of the fundamental guarantees of due process of law under Article 8 of the Convention and must be observed in any proceeding so that the individual may defend himself against any act of the 299 State that can affect his rights. Thus, for example, the IACHR has invoked the right of defense in reference to indigenous peoples’ right to participate as parties in proceedings conducted before judicial 300 bodies in which their territorial rights are at stake. 209. Accordingly, the Commission considers that before ordering that RCTV’s property be assigned to the State –or after doing so- the Constitutional Chamber should have taken measures to ensure that the owners of the property in question were able to exercise the right of defense. It is a violation of due process for a court to order seizure of the property essential for a media outlet to operate without even notifying that media outlet beforehand of the existence of the proceeding. The Commission 293 Annexes 66-69, Records of Execution of Supreme Court Judgment and Inventories of Assets dated May 27 and 28, 2007, in connection with the Constitutional Chamber’s Decision No. 956 of May 25, 2007. Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 79. 294 Annex 80, RCTV, Objection to the injunction issued by the Constitutional Chamber in Decision No. 957 of May 25, 2007, filed on May 31, 2007. Communication received from the petitioners on June 16, 2011. 295 Supreme Court, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0720/07-0731, Decision No. 1.075 of June 1, 2007, Available [in Spanish] at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/scon/Junio/1075-010607-07-0720.htm. 296 Annex 65, Supreme Court, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0731, Decision No. 957, of May 25, 2007, p. 13, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 78. 297 Annex 1, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, p. 188. 298 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 117 [translation ours]. 299 Cf. I/A Court H.R.. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, paragraph 102. 300 Cf. IACHR, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights over Their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources: Norms and Jurisprudence of the Inter�� American Human Rights System. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 56/09, December 30, 2009, paragraph 367; IACHR, Access to Justice and Social Inclusion: the road towards strengthening democracy in Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 34, June 28, 2007, paragraph 280.