65 fails to understand how a media outlet could be regarded as nothing more than an interested third party vis-à-vis an injunction that ordered its property assigned elsewhere, and is not given the right to make arguments and offer evidence in defense of and in support of its own interests. For these reasons, the IACHR concludes that in the process that resulted in the seizure of RCTV’s property, the right of defense was not observed, in violation of Article 8(1) of the American Convention and to the detriment of RCTV’s 301 shareholders. 210. The second allegation that the petitioners made and that the Commission must decide concerns the alleged delay in deciding the objection to the injunction. As previously mentioned, on May 31, 2007, RCTV filed a brief objecting to the injunction that assigned its property to CONATEL and 302 requested that the injunction be revoked. The information supplied by the petitioners, which the State did not contest, is that on June 13, 2007 RCTV filed a brief to offer evidence, that the Constitutional Chamber set a preliminary hearing for June 17, 2008, and that on June 17, 2008 the Constitutional Chamber postponed the preliminary hearing without setting a new date. According to the information the IACHR has available, as of the date of adoption of this report, the Constitutional Chamber had still not 303 issued a ruling on the objection that RCTV entered regarding the injunction. 211. The Commission notes that the proceedings that resulted in the injunctions issued by the 304 Constitutional Chamber were decided within the space of one and three days, respectively, in stark contrast to the more than five years that have passed without the Constitutional Chamber issuing its ruling on the objection to those measures. Venezuelan law requires that objections to injunctions be 305 decided “promptly.” The Commission, too, believes that this must be a “simple and prompt recourse”, in keeping with Article 25(1) of the Convention. In the instant case, the State has not provided and the Commission does not find any explanation for the long delay in issuing a ruling on the objection to the injunction, an injunction that has remained in place the entire time that the decision on the objection to it has been pending. The Commission therefore finds that the State has violated Article 25(1) of the 306 American Convention, to the detriment of RCTV’s shareholders. 301 Marcel Granier, Peter Bottome, Jaime Nestares, Jean Nestares, Fernando Nestares, Alicia Phelps de Tovar, and Francisco J. Nestares. 302 Annex 80, RCTV, RCTV, Objection to the injunction issued by the Constitutional Chamber in Decision No. 957 of May 25, 2007, filed on May 31, 2007. Communication received from the petitioners on June 16, 2011. 303 Annex 79, Report on the procedural status of the petitions and requests filed by RCTV, July 28, 2011, Communication from the petitioners received on August 5, 2011, Attachment 13, p. 9. Information not contested by the State. 304 Case 07-0720 was instituted on May 22, 2007 and was decided on May 25, 2007, while Case 07-0731 was instituted on May 24, 2007 and decided on May 25, 2007. 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. 305 The pertinent part of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: Article 602 Within three days following enforcement of the preventive measure, if the party against which it was ordered has already been notified or, if not, within three days following said party’s notification, the latter may enter an objection, citing the reasons and the grounds said party is alleging. Whether or not an objection has been entered, the interested parties shall have eight days to bring their case and offer any evidence they believe serves their interests. In the cases to which Article 590 refers, no objection will be entered and the eight-day period to which this article refers will not apply, but the party may have the measure suspended as set forth in Article 589. Article 603 Within no more than two days of the date on which the evidentiary phase of the proceedings has ended, the Court will deliver its ruling, which is subject to appeal. 306 Marcel Granier, Peter Bottome, Jaime Nestares, Jean Nestares, Fernando Nestares, Alicia Phelps de Tovar, and Francisco J. Nestares.