28. Article 46(2) of the American Convention provides that the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies shall not apply when: a) the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; b) the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them, or c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. Thus, the Commission must examine whether domestic remedies were exhausted or whether one of the exceptions under Article 46(2). Here, the Commission recalls that an alleged victim need not exhaust every domestic remedy available; he need only exhaust those that are suitable for remedying his legal situation and redressing the harm done; in other words he need only exhaust the proper remedies for any given case. 29. In the instant case, a petition seeking constitutional amparo and a remedy under administrative law seeking nullification were filed to put a stop to or challenge the decision not to renew RCTV’s concession. On May 17, 2007, the Supreme Court declared the petition seeking amparo relief inadmissible on the grounds that the proper remedy by which to challenge a government decision was the remedy under administrative law seeking nullification. 30. The remedy under administrative law seeking nullification was filed on April 17, 2007. The Commission notes that the remedy was filed by RCTV, the legal person affected by the decision being challenged, which was also representing its shareholders, and by the natural persons that the petitioners named as alleged victims, in their capacity as RCTV journalists and executives; the only exceptions were two persons who are currently on the company’s management team. 9 The argument made in the administrative law case was that the decision not to renew the concession violated the right to freedom of expression of those persons who used RCTV to express their ideas and opinions, and did so despite the government pressure brought to bear on each and every one. It also argued that the State’s decision was based on RCTV’s political stance, which made it a retaliatory measure that unlawfully abridged the alleged victims’ freedom of expression. 31. From the information in the case file record, the Commission observes that the remedy seeking nullification has been in the discovery phase since October 2007. Indeed the decision on the appeals that both parties to the proceedings filed to challenge the ruling on the admissibility of evidence, is still pending despite the fact that, according to the petitioners, it was to have been delivered by no later than July 25, 2008. That information was not contested by the State. 32. Apart from the decision not to renew the concession, the petitioners argue that the injunctive relief ordered by the Supreme Court, in which it turned over RCTV’s tangible assets to CONATEL, violates the alleged victims’ basic rights, particularly their right to due process and the company shareholders’ right to property. The petitioners contend that RCTV was not properly notified of the decision not to renew the concession and was not permitted to be a party to the process. On May 31, 2007, RCTV, as owner of the seized assets, challenged the measures taken. Based on the information in the case file, the Supreme Court never delivered its ruling on the challenge and the injunctive relief is still in effect. RCTV was never made a party to the proceedings in the regular courts. 33. Based on these considerations and on the information received, the Commission takes note concludes that the administrative remedy seeking nullification is still in its very early stages and the petition challenging the injunctive relief has not elicited any response from the Supreme Court, even though four years have passed. There is, therefore, prima facie an unwarranted delay in deciding these cases and the State has not offered any information to explain the delay. The Commission thus concludes that the petition is admissible based on the exception established in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. 9 These executives are Carlos Lamas and Grilva Delgado. Cf. Submission entered with the administrative law remedy seeking nullification, filed with the Supreme Court’s Political-Administrative Law Chamber, April 17, 2007 (Communication received from the petitioners on February 18, 2010, Annex 110, pp. 1 to 5), and Communication received from the petitioners on May 20, 2010. 7