6 Nestares, Jean Nestares, Fernando Nestares, Alicia Phelps de Tovar and Francisco J. Nestares.”29 24. In addition, during its examination of the domestic proceedings, the Court verified that, during the processing of the “administrative remedy seeking nullification with a request for an injunction and, failing this unspecified interim measures of protection against the administrative decision derived from Resolution No. 002 and Communication No. 0424,” the guarantees of those concerned were violated. Indeed, the Court determined that “the judicial authority did not ensure, diligently, that a reasonable time was respected in this case,”30 and that there had been excessive delays in these proceedings which were at a halt since 2008. In this regard, the Court concluded that “Venezuela violated the right to a reasonable time established in Article 8(1) in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of 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,”31 25. Furthermore, regarding the processing of the unspecified interim measure, the Court reiterated the principle that “the amparo should be a ‘simple and prompt” remedy pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Convention, and […] that other remedies should be decided within a “reasonable time” pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Convention.”32 Therefore, since this was an interim measure and since more than three months were taken to decide it, the State “violated the right to a reasonable time established in Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of 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.”33 26. Regarding the criminal proceedings in this case, the Court determined that the State did not violate Article 8 of the Convention when processing the criminal complaint filed by RCTV “requesting the opening of an investigation into offenses against property and other offenses established in the Anti-Corruption Law.”34 However, in the judicial proceedings related to the alleged seizure of assets, the Court noted that, in May 2007, the RCTV representatives filed “an appeal against the interim measure issued by the Constitutional Chamber in the context of the action on joint and separate interests that assigned the use of RCTV’s assets to CONATEL.”35 Despite the time that has passed, “the interim measures issued in 2007 remain in force to date and the State continues using RCTV’s property to transmit the signal of the State channel TVes,”36 thus constituting a violation of the “right to a hearing and a reasonable time established in Article 8(1), in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of Marcel Granier, Peter Bottome, Jaime 29 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 253. 30 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 270. 31 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 276. 32 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 282. 33 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 287. 34 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, paras. 114, 292. 35 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 307. 36 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 307.