84 284. The Court recalls that in the case of Apitz Barbera et al. v. Venezuela, it considered that, under the laws of Venezuela, the precautionary nature of the amparo exercised together with the appeal for nullification requires provisional, but immediate, protection in view of the nature of the harm. This permits the legal situation infringed by the State to be restored to its condition before the supposed violation occurred while a final decision is taken in the main proceedings. 324 On that occasion, the Court established that it had to make an analysis that differentiated the duration of the decision on the amparo from the duration of the decision on the appeal for nullification; and even though they were filed together they have different purposes. Thus, the Court considers that the alleged unjustified delay in an application for amparo should be analyzed in light of Article 25 of the Convention, while the other remedies should be examined under the “reasonable time” that derives from Article 8(1) of the Convention. 285. Consequently, the Court will analyze the unspecified interim measure, in relation to the violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention. 286. When analyzing whether the interim measure was decided within a reasonable time, the Court notes, based on the criteria established in its case law (supra para. 255), that: (i) the interim measure was not sufficiently complex to justify the delay in issuing a decision because, basically, it reiterated the arguments presented with regard to the injunction and asked that the situation of RCTV at that time be maintained while the proceedings on the appeal for nullification continued;325 (ii) the conduct of the presumed victims did not affect the progress of the proceedings and, in fact, the RCTV representatives tried to further them by reiterating to the Superior Court the urgency of ruling on the requested interim measure; 326 (iii) the authorities took more than three months to decide the measure without the State providing any explanation about the reason for this delay, and (iv) the interim measure was decided more than two months after the date on which RCTV ceased transmitting, making it impossible for this measure to be effective, since it was decided a considerable time after the act that it sought to avoid had occurred. Therefore, the Court considers that, in this case, the delay did result in relevant harm to the legal situation of those involved. Consequently, the Court notes that the period of more than three months to decide the interim measure violated the right to a reasonable time. 287. The Court concludes that, when processing the unspecified interim measure, the Venezuelan State violated the right to a reasonable time established in Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of 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, Eladio Lárez, Odila Rubin, Oswaldo Quintana, Eduardo Sapene, Daniela Bergami, Isabel Valero, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, Soraya Castellano, María Arriaga and Larissa Patiño. A.3. Criminal proceedings A.3.1. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 288. The Commission considered that Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention had not been violated with regard to the criminal complaint filed by RCTV and the treatment it received in 324 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, para. 169. Cf. Administrative appeal for nullification with a request for an injunction filed with the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela on April 17, 2007 (Evidence file, folios 28365 to 28495). 325 Cf. Sworn statement on the urgency of the administrative appeal for nullification with a request for an injunction filed with the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela on May 24, 2007. Case No. 07-0411 (evidence file, folio 3690). 326