30 101 harm denounced was a matter of the past.” The Chamber also declared the petition to be inadmissible by virtue of Article 6(5) of the Amparo Act, which provides that the petition will not be admitted “[w]hen the aggrieved party has opted to work through the regular court system or has made use of pre-existing judicial avenues […].” According to the Constitutional Chamber, the aggrieved parties had another suitable judicial avenue to pursue to challenge the administrative acts in question, such as an administrative-law remedy seeking nullification, which they could have exercised in combination with a petition for injunctive relief. In effect, the Chamber pointed out that RCTV had already filed that petition with the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court on April 17, 2007, and observed that “there is nothing in the case record to suggest that a de facto situation exists from which some unavoidable disadvantage could accrue to the plaintiffs or that the grievance or harm denounced might 102 have become irreparable had they pursued and exhausted the administrative-law avenue first.” 99. As for the other petitions seeking amparo relief based on facts related to RCTV and filed with the Constitutional Chamber between May 10 and 24, 2007, the Commission observes that IACHR’s case file does not contain copies of the petitions filed in those proceedings. However, from the decisions adopted and published by the Constitutional Chamber, it is apparent that only one of those petitions could involve alleged victims in this case: the petition of amparo that RCTV filed on May 10, 2007, and that was 103 decided on May 24, 2007. Through this petition, classified as Case No. 07-0647, the RCTV commercial enterprise requested that implementation of the National Plan for Telecommunications, Information Sciences and Postal Services 2007-2013 be halted until the State formally adopts it. On May 24, 2007, the Constitutional Chamber declared this petition to be inadmissible based on Article 6(5) of the Amparo Act mentioned earlier, because of the administrative-law remedy seeking nullification that RCTV had filed 104 with the Political-Administrative Chamber on April 17, 2007. Furthermore, despite the fact that the petition seeking amparo relief in Case No. 07-0679 was brought by RCTV employees, those employees 105 are not among the alleged victims in the case with the Inter-American Commission. In the other 106 petitions seeking amparo relief, the aggrieved parties named were persons unaffiliated with RCTV. Administrative-law petition seeking nullficiation 100. On April 17, 2007, a group of executives, journalists and other employees of RCTV filed an administrative-law petition seeking nullification of the administrative decision in Resolution No. 002 101 In his concurring opinion, Justice Pedro Rafael Rondón Haaz observed, inter alia, that: the complaint filed regarding the administrative proceeding underway at the time the petition seeking amparo relief was filed, alleged a violation of the right of access to one’s natural judge in terms of impartiality since, as they tell it, the entity in charge of processing and deciding the matter had already advanced an opinion in that regard; the complaint did not allege a failure on the part of the administrative authority to respond. The threat that is the subject of the complaint is that a biased institution would make the decision, which is in fact appears to be what happened as the response came from the Minister whose subjective competence was called into question.” Annex 76**, Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0197, Inadmissibility decision of May 17, 2007, Concurring Opinion of Justice Pedro Rafael Rondón Haaz, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 109. 102 Annex 76, Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0197, Inadmissibility decision of May 17, 2007. Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 109. 103 Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0647, Decision of May 24, 2007; Case No. 07-0674, Decision of May 24, 2007; Case No. 07-0679, Decision of May 24, 2007; Case Nos. 07-0721, 07-0722, 07-0723 y 07-0724, Decision of May 22, 2007; Case No. 07-0726, Decision of July 17, 2007; Case No. 07-0725, Decision of May 22, 2007; Case No. 07-0727, Decision of July 17, 2007; Case No. 07-0717, Decision of June 25, 2007; Case No. 07-0747, Decision of July 17, 2007, and Case No. 07-0739, Decision of August 3, 2007. Available [in Spanish] at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/sala.asp?sala=005&ano_actual=2007&nombre=SalaConstitucional. 104 Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0647, Decision No. 951 of May 24, 2007. Available [in Spanish] at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/scon/Mayo/951-240507-07-0647.htm. 105 Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0679, Decision No. 952 of May 24, 2007; Available [in Spanish] at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/scon/Mayo/952-240507-07-0679.htm. 106 Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0674, Decision of May 24, 2007; Case Nos. 07-0721, 07-0722, 07-0723 y 07-0724, Decision of May 22, 2007; Case No. 07-0726, Decision of July 17, 2007; Case No. 07-0725, Decision of May 22, 2007; Case No. 07-0727, Decision of July 17, 2007; Case No. 07-0717, Decision of June 25, 2007; Case No. 07-0747, Decision of July 17, 2007, and Case No. 07-0739, Decision of August 3, 2007. Available [in Spanish] at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/sala.asp?sala=005&ano_actual=2007&nombre=SalaConstitucional.