36 96. Similarly, on May 24, 2007, José Félix Guerrero Peralta, José Miguel Ferrer Pérez and Jorge Enrique Larrazábal Larrazábal, and the users “Oyentes Interactivos de la Radio (OIR)” filed an action for separate and joint interests before the Constitutional Chamber of the SCJ, together with an unspecified interim measure, against the President of the Republic and the MPPTI, who was also the Director of CONATEL. The action was registered as Case No. 07-0731. The plaintiffs alleged that the eventual closure of RCTV, which appeared imminent according to statements made by the respondents, would seriously and unlawfully restrict the public’s right to freedom of expression and information by depriving it one of the television options that the Venezuelan people had to receive their preferred opinion, entertainment and information programs. The plaintiffs argued that “the eventual closure of [RCTV] is unconstitutional because this order to close down the network […] was a punishment imposed on that station for including in its broadcasts, messages that the government disagrees with.” Consequently, they asked the Constitutional Chamber to order the necessary measures to enable RCTV to remain on air, without interruption.148 97. On May 25, 2007, the Constitutional Chamber issued Decision No. 957, in which it admitted the application only against the MPPTI and granted interim measures, ex officio.149 In this regard, the Chamber noted that CONATEL was the competent body to rule on the legal situation of the RCTV concession and, therefore, the application was inadmissible against the President of the Republic. It also asserted that article 27 of the Constitution granted the constitutional judge the power to restore the legal situation violated or the closest possible equivalent immediately. It added that the State had the obligation to guarantee the universal telecommunications service by maintaining the system in sufficient or adequate operating conditions and, accordingly, the Administration could make temporary use of the assets needed to deliver that service in order to protect the users’ rights to a quality public service. The Chamber also affirmed that, in principle, the users’ right of access to and enjoyment of a universal public telecommunications service did not mean the continuation of a specific operator, but rather “the possibility that the said users may have effective access, under equal conditions, and provided that the corresponding service is maintained at a minimum standard of quality, irrespective of whether or not the specific private operation has a valid permission or concession.” 150 98. Considering that TVes might not have the infrastructure necessary to transmit nationwide, the Constitutional Chamber ordered interim measures similar to those ordered by Decision No. 956 delivered in Case No. 07-0720. Therefore, “as a temporary measure to ensure an uninterrupted universal public service,” the Chamber assigned to CONATEL the right to use the equipment necessary for the said operations, and entrusted CONATEL with assigning its use to the operator chosen in accordance with the provisions of the LOTEL. Lastly, the Constitutional Chamber ordered publication of a notice convening those interested in becoming intervening parties for one side or the other in the case, or representing their own rights and interests. However, it indicated that the intervening parties could only make arguments and introduce evidence in support of the party for which they intervened.151 99. The interim measures were executed on May 27 and 28, 2007, with the transfer to CONATEL of the use of the assets indicated in the corresponding decisions.152 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Files No. 07-0731, Decision No. 957 of May 25, 2007 (evidence file, folios 3464 a 3468). 149 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Files No. 07-0731, Decision No. 957 of May 25, 2007 (evidence file, folio 3486). 150 Cf. Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Files No. 07-0731, Decision No. 957 of May 25, 2007 (evidence file, folios 3476 to 3481 and 3484). 151 Cf. Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Files No. 07-0731, Decision No. 957 of May 25, 2007 (evidence file, folio 3485 and 3487). 152 Record of execution of the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of May 27, 2007 (evidence file, folios 3494 148