34 109. As for the criminal complaint that Marcel Granier was said to have filed on April 10, 2007, with the Office of the Superior Prosecutor of the Metropolitan Caracas Area requesting an investigation into events that would qualify as the crimes of embezzlement, malfeasance of funds and abuse of office, the petitioners did not file a copy of the documents pertaining to this complaint. Although the State has not refuted these facts, the IACHR does not have evidence with which to prove these facts. Requests made to CONATEL 110. RCTV filed a number of requests with CONATEL concerning the status and condition of the equipment and facilities it owned and that were assigned to CONATEL, and concerning administrative procedures related to RCTV: a) On March 21, 2007, an RCTV representative requested a copy of the administrative case instituted on January 24, 2007, in which clarifications had been requested concerning the duration of its concession. The attorney for the station was denied access to that 122 case file; b) On June 8, 2007, RCTV filed a request with CONATEL asking that: i) the property not listed in the injunctions issued by the Constitutional Court –including personal property belonging to the station- be returned; ii) it coordinate with the competent state agencies to arrange a mechanism that would give RCTV access to its equipment and enable it to inspect that equipment; and iii) it provide any records of equipment deliveries that were not already provided to 123 RCTV, and other measures. c) On September 18, 2007, and May 15, 2008, RCTV requested a certified copy of the administrative file through which the concession was awarded to TVes, so that RCTV might 124 take whatever legal measures it deemed pertinent; d) On May 7, 2008, the station requested a hearing with CONATEL’s legal consultant to explain its concerns and legal thinking about the situation of the property taken in the 125 injunctive relief ordered; and e) On May 26, 2009, RCTV notified CONATEL of the poor state of repair and of the theft of the RCTV equipment that had been assigned to CONATEL; it asked that the necessary 126 measures be taken to ensure that the property in question was properly secured. 111. As of August 2011, according to the petitioners’ assertions -not contested by the StateCONATEL had not answered RCTV’s requests. V. 127 ANALYSIS OF LAW 128 112. Pursuant to its report on admissibility in the present case, the Commission will now analyze whether articles 8, 13, 21, 24, and 25 of the American Convention—in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention—have been violated in this case. The Commission will not analyze the State’s 122 Annex 75, RCTV, Request to CONATEL dated March 21, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 104. 123 Annex 83, RCTV, Request to CONATEL dated June 8, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 82. 124 Annex 84, RCTV, Request to CONATEL dated September 18, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 85, Annex 85, RCTV Request to CONATEL, May 15, 2008, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 86. 125 Annex 86, RCTV, RCTV, Request to CONATEL dated May 7, 2008, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 84. 126 Annex 87, RCTV, Request to CONATEL dated May 26, 2009, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 83. 127 Annex 79, Report on the procedural status of the petitions and requests filed by RCTV, Communication from the petitioners received on August 1, 2011, Attachment 13. Information not contested by the State. 128 IACHR, Report No. 114/11 (Admissibility), Marcel Granier et al., Venezuela, Juy 22, 2011.