29 fact that by February 9, 2007, the respondents had already decided not to renew RCTV’s concession and, moreover, sought to justify their action by claiming supposed violations of the Criminal Code, 97 LOTEL, and the Law on Social Responsibility in Radio and Television. The plaintiffs argued that under Article 242 of the Constitution and Article 58 of the Organic Public Administration Law, the ministries are directly answerable to the President of the Republic; thus, the decisions of the National Executive Branch materialize through the legal measures taken by the ministries. They also observed that the National Executive had been unable to show that any definitive decision ordered a penalty imposed on RCTV for allegedly serious violations of those laws; that there had never been any criminal or administrative-law proceeding to penalize or discipline RCTV, and that the decision will be enforced by officials who have already made public statements about the case, even about the grounds for the decision. Therefore, the respondents had denied RCTV i) the right to a hearing to freely set forth its arguments; ii) administrative due process, and iii) its right to obtain a decision on its request for an extension or renewal of its concession, delivered by an impartial body on the basis of law. The plaintiffs also argued that RCTV was in the same situation as all other free-to-air television and radio stations in existence as of May 27, 1987. Finally, they requested the admission of a number of pieces of evidence, including that CONATEL be required to show: i) all applications for transformation of free-to-air television and sound radio broadcasting that it had received pursuant to Article 210 of LOTEL, and ii) all the penalties imposed on free-to-air television and sound radio broadcasters for violations of LOTEL and the Law on Social Responsibility in Radio and Television. 97. The decision on the petition seeking amparo relief was still pending on March 28, 2007, the date on which CONATEL issued Communication No. 0424 and Resolution No. 002. On April 2, 2007, the plaintiffs reframed their original petition seeking amparo relief to rebut the terms of the government’s 98 decision not to renew RCTV’s concession. In that brief, they alleged, inter alia: i) bias on the part of the Minister of the People’s Power for Telecommunications and Information, who had signed the decision and who had previously stated his opinion on the merits of the matter submitted to the court; ii) a violation of the right of defense by virtue of the fact that they were not permitted to introduce the arguments and evidence made in the brief presented to CONATEL on January 24, 2007; iii) a violation of due process by being denied access to the administrative record in the lead-up to the adoption of the decisions contained 99 in Resolution No. 002 and Communication No. 0424, which prevented them from making arguments and introducing evidence in their own defense, and iv) the reasoning given in the decisions included extemporaneous and untruthful matters, particular the question of the need to use RCTV’s frequencies to carry out the National Telecommunications Plan. They also pointed out that the decision on the petition of amparo had been pending for 23 days. 100 98. On May 17, 2007, the Supreme Court issued its decision on the petition of amparo. In that decision, the Constitutional Chamber declared that it was competent to examine the petition. However, it found the petition to be inadmissible with respect to the President of the Republic, since it was CONATEL alone that decided RCTV’s legal status. It also ruled that the petition was inadmissible with respect to Minister Jesse Chacón Escamillo because, under Article 6(1) of the Organic Law of Amparo for Protection of Fundamental Rights and Guarantees, in order for the petition to be admissible with respect to Minister Chacón Escamillo, the grievance or harm had to be current. The Constitutional Chamber deemed that, in the case it had under consideration, the complaint alleged an omission on the part of the MPPTI; “however, during the processing of the petition seeking amparo relief, the alleged offender produced the response that had heretofore been omitted, which meant that […] the grievance or 97 Annex 73, Petition of Amparo filed with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court on February 9, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 107, pp. 11-12. 98 Annex 74, Amendment to the Petition of Amparo, filed with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court on April 2, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 108. 99 See in this regard, Annex 75, RCTV, Request to CONATEL dated March 21, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 104. 100 Annex 76, Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0197, Inadmissibility decision dated May 17, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 109.