63 situation of the persons involved has been continuously affected as they have been unable to express their views over the RCTV free-to-air television channel. Based on these considerations –and, again, lacking any explanation from the State for the more than four years’ delay in arriving at a decision on this matter- the Commission declares that the administrative-law petition filed for nullification has not been decided within a reasonable period, in violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention and to the detriment of 290 the RCTV shareholders, executives and employees who are victims in the present case. 202. Finally, the petitioners are alleging that the body called upon to decide the petition seeking nullification –i.e., the Supreme Court’s Political-Administrative Chamber- is neither independent nor impartial. They allege, inter alia, that when denying the petition seeking protective amparo, the Political-Administrative Chamber had advanced an opinion on the merits of the petition for nullification and had expressed an opinion to the effect that RCTV’s property could revert back to the State, a matter that was not even being litigated in the petition for nullification. 203. As for the first point, the Commission observes that when it denied the petition seeking amparo relief, the Political-Administrative Chamber declared that non-renewal of the frequency “in no way implies a supposed violation of that right [to freedom of expression], since plaintiffs are free to impart their 291 ideas, opinions and information through the many other media outlets.” The IACHR shares the petitioners’ assessment to the effect that this observation advances a partial opinion on the merits of the case. Nevertheless, in this case, the Commission considers that the statement made by the PoliticalAdministrative Chamber occurred in the normal conduct of the business of the court, when it was called upon to decide a petition seeking amparo relief filed jointly with the petition for nullification. In effect, as the precautionary protection of freedom of expression was requested, the tribunal had to adopt a position as to whether non-renewal of the concession was a violation of this right that would necessitate precautionary protection; hence, it was inevitable –or at least predictable- that the court would take a position on a matter related to the merits of the petition for nullification. Given the circumstances, the Commission does not consider that the Political-Administrative Chamber’s decision on the petition for precautionary amparo evidences a lack of impartiality. 204. In the next section of this report, which concerns the seizure of RCTV’s property, the Commission will address the other point made by the petitioners –i.e., that the Political-Administrative Chamber had allegedly taken a position on the possibility that RCTV’s assets might revert back to the State. 3. The court proceedings on the seizure of RCTV’s property 205. As has been established, on Friday, May 25, 2007, the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Chamber delivered decisions No. 956 and No. 957 wherein it ordered, as injunctive relief, that some of RCTV’s property -transmitters, antennas, towers, etc.- be temporarily assigned to CONATEL to provide the infrastructure necessary to ensure continued “delivery of a universal public telecommunications 292 service” once CONATEL went off the air and was replaced by TVes. The injunctions were enforced on 290 In the filing of the administrative-law petition for nullification and the petitions for precautionary amparo and unspecified injunctive relief, RCTV participated as representative of its shareholders and all the executives and employees of RCTV who are victims in the present case. The victims of this violation are, therefore, the following: Marcel Granier, Peter Bottome, Jaime Nestares, Jean Nestares, Fernando Nestares, Alicia Phelps de Tovar, Francisco J. Nestares, Edgardo Mosca, Anani Hernández, Inés Bacalao, José Simón Escalona, Eladio Lárez, Odila Rubin, Oswaldo Quintana, Eduardo Sapene, Daniela Bergami, Isabel Valero, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, Soraya Castellano, María Arriaga and Larissa Patiño. See Annex 16, Administrative-law Petition for Nullification, filed with the Supreme Court’s Political-Administrative Chamber on April 17, 2007, pp. 47-54, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 110. 291 Annex 77, Supreme Court, Political-Administrative Chamber, Case No. 07-0411, Decision of May 22, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 111. 292 Annex 64, Supreme Court, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0720, Decision No. 956 of May 25, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 78. Annex 65, Supreme Court, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0731, Decision No. 957, of May 25, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 78.