68 that resulted in the seizure of RCTV’s equipment, were distorted to achieve ends that were at odds with the objectives of the litigation. In the first case, having agreed to hear a petition on another matter –the non-renewal of RCTV’s concession-, the Political-Administrative Chamber had added an orbiter dictum on a matter completely at variance with the purpose of that petition, in which it suggested the possibility that RCTV’s property might revert back and become the property of the State. In the second, the Constitutional Chamber took advantage of the opportunity offered by a suit directed at keeping RCTV on the air, to assign the use of RCTV’s equipment to the State. In response to this latter situation, the original complainants attempted to drop their complaint, a request that the Constitutional Chamber denied by 323 claiming reasons of public interest. Compounding all this was the Constitutional Chamber’s delay of more than four years in issuing its ruling on the objection that RCTV filed back on May 31, 2007. This protracted delay stands in sharp contrast to the one and three days that the Constitutional Chamber took to issue the rulings that led to the seizure of RCTV’s equipment. Based on these observations, the IACHR 324 concludes that the Supreme Court violated the RCTV shareholders’ right to a hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal protected under Article 8(1) of the American Convention. 4. The criminal complaints filed by RCTV 218. Concerning the criminal complaints filed by RCTV, the Commission recalls that on December 11, 2007, RCTV filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the Superior Prosecutor of the Metropolitan Caracas Judicial Circuit requesting that a criminal investigation be instituted for propertyrelated crimes and other offenses criminalized under the Anti-Corruption Law. The complaint alleged that 325 the Constitutional Chamber had stripped RCTV of its right to property and to ownership of assets. On December 28, 2007, Prosecution Unit 36 of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, with full jurisdiction nationwide, petitioned the preliminary examining court to dismiss the case on the grounds that the facts alleged in the complaint were not criminal acts. On July 28, 2008, the 51st Preliminary Examining Court of First Instance of the Metropolitan Caracas Criminal Court Circuit admitted the request for dismissal filed 326 by the Prosecutor’s Office, and with that the investigation was closed. On October 10, 2008, the Fifth Chamber of the Appellate Court of the Metropolitan Caracas Criminal Court Circuit confirmed the reasons given by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in its request to have the complaint dismissed, and declared the appeal filed by RCTV to be out of order. RCTV filed a petition of cassation with the Supreme Court’s Criminal Cassation Chamber to challenge dismissal of its complaint; its petition was denied on May 7, 327 2009. 219. The petitioners allege that the competent authorities “have not fulfilled their duty to investigate facts that violate the right to property […] classified as crimes prosecuted by the State,” in 328 violation of articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. The petitioners, however, did not supply all the records of the criminal case, including the decision of the Public Prosecutor’s Office to seek dismissal of the case on the grounds that the facts alleged did not constitute crimes. The information was provided showed that the Prosecutor’s Office examined the criminal complaint filed by RCTV almost immediately and that RCTV was able to appeal the Prosecution’s decision to seek dismissal of the complaint and even filed a 323 Supreme Court, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0720/07-0731, Decision No. 1.075 of June 1, 2007; Available [in Spanish] at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/scon/Junio/1075-010607-07-0720.htm. 324 Marcel Granier, Peter Bottome, Jaime Nestares, Jean Nestares, Fernando Nestares, Alicia Phelps de Tovar, and Francisco J. Nestares. 325 Annex 81, RCTV, Complaint for procedural fraud filed with the Office of the Superior Prosecutor of the Metropolitan Caracas Court Circuit, December 11, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 80. 326 Annex 82, RCTV, Appeal filed with the 51st Preliminary Examining Court of First Instance of the Metropolitan Caracas Criminal Court Circuit, Case No. 370-08, August 7, 2008, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 81. Supreme Court. Criminal Cassation Chamber, Case No. C09-005, Decision No. 195 of May 7, 2009. Available [in Spanish] at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/scp/Mayo/195-7509-2009-C09-005.html. 327 Supreme Court, Chamber of Criminal Cassation, Case No. C09-005, Decision No. 195 of May 7, 2009. Available [in Spanish] at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/scp/Mayo/195-7509-2009-C09-005.html. 328 Annex 1, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, p. 189.