27 choices that the Venezuelan people have for opinion programming, entertainment and news of their choosing. The plaintiffs argued that “the eventual closing of [RCTV] is unconstitutional, since the order for its closing […] is a penalty being imposed on that station for including in its broadcasts, messages that the government considers unfriendly.” They therefore asked the Constitutional Chamber to order the 87 injunctive relief necessary to enable RCTV to remain on the air, without interruption. 92. On Friday, May 25, 2007, the Constitutional Chamber issued decision No. 957 in which it agreed to hear the petition, but only with respect to the MPPTI. It also granted an injunction on its own 88 initiative. The Constitutional Chamber observed that the competent body to rule on the legality of RCTV’s concession is CONATEL, which is why it declared the case against the President of the Republic to be inadmissible. It also held that under Article 27 of the Venezuelan Constitution, the judge presiding over proceedings on a claim for constitutional protection shall have the power to restore immediately the legal right violated or the closest possible equivalent; that the State has the duty to guarantee universal telecommunications service by maintaining the system in sufficient or adequate operating condition; accordingly, the Administration can make temporary use of assets needed to deliver that service, for the sake of properly protecting the users’ rights to a quality public service. The Constitutional Chamber also held that the audience’s right to access to and enjoyment of a universal public telecommunications service did not mean access to a specific broadcaster, but rather “the opportunity for users to effectively access such a service, under conditions of equality, and provided the services is maintained at the minimum standard of quality appropriate for such a service, irrespective of whether a specific private 89 operator exists or has a license or concession.” 93. Reasoning that the TVes might not have the infrastructure necessary for nationwide broadcasting, the Constitutional Chamber ordered injunctive relief similar to what was ordered in decision No. 956 delivered in Case No. 07-0720. Therefore, as a “temporary measure calculated to ensure that a universal public service runs without interruption,” the Constitutional Chamber assigned to CONATEL the right to use the equipment necessary for nationwide broadcasting. Under that decision, it was CONATEL’s responsibility and its discretion to assign the use of those assets to the operator selected in accordance with the provisions of LOTEL. Finally, the Constitutional Chamber ordered that a notice be published inviting those interested to become intervening parties supporting one side or the other in the case, or representing their own rights and interests. However, the Constitutional Chamber held that the intervening parties could only make arguments and introduce evidence in support of the party with which 90 they sided. 94. The injunctive relief measures were enforced on May 27 and 28, 2007, when the assets specified in the corresponding decisions and other objects not named in those decisions were assigned to 87 Annex 65, Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0731, Decision No. 957 of May 25, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 78. 88 Annex 65, Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0731, Decision No. 957 of May 25, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 78. 89 Annex 65, Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0731, Decision No. 957 of May 25, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 78. 90 Annex 65, Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0731, Decision No. 957 of May 25, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 78. In a separate opinion, Justice Pedro Rafael Rondón Haaz expressed disagreement with the injunctive relief ordered by the Constitutional Chamber. He stated, inter alia, the following: i) “the continuity of the [public television] service would have been guaranteed to much greater effect if the injunctive relief would have permitted the current operator of that portion of the radio-electric spectrum to remain in operation on a provisional basis, until the decision on this case is handed down”; ii) the injunctive relief ordered “means that one element of [RCTV’s] right to property (i.e., use) is being taken away in the case of the assets assigned to the State, without explaining the legal grounds for that measure; and iii) although it was agreed that TVes might not have the necessary legal infrastructure for its broadcasts to reach a nationwide audience, CONATEL was authorized to reach an agreement with any operator to use RCTV’s assets ; and iv) although the assignment of the assets to the State is said to be a temporary measure, the length of time is not specified. Dissenting Opinion of Justice Pedro Rafael Rondón Haaz on Decision No. 957 of May 25, 2007. Available [in Spanish] at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/scon/Mayo/957-250507-07-0731.htm.