78 252. In this regard, the Court recalls that, in this judgment, it has declared that the purpose of the termination of the administrative procedures for the transformation of the titles and the renewal of the concession was to silence the media outlet (supra paras. 198 and 199) and that this purpose violates the guarantees established in Article 8 of the Convention because the administrative procedures should have continued in order to define whether or not the transformation or renewal of the concession was accepted. The Court emphasizes that, if this procedure had continued in keeping with domestic law and respecting the basic safeguards established by those provisions, the arbitrariness of the decision would have been avoided. Consequently, the Court considers that the existence of the said procedure and the fact that the State decided not to apply it is precisely one more element of the real and illegitimate purpose that has already been declared in this judgment (supra paras. 198 and 199). 253. Based on the above, the Court concludes that domestic law established an appropriate procedure for the transformation of the titles and for the renewal of the concession and the State deliberately omitted to follow this, thus violating the judicial guarantees 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 and Francisco J. Nestares. Considering that the State did not following the procedures established by law, the Court does not find it necessary to make a special ruling in this case on the other alleged violations related to the right to a hearing and to present evidence, access to the administrative case file and the independence of the entity responsible for awarding or renewing the concession. A.2. Administrative remedy seeking nullification with applications for an injunction and unspecified interim measure 254. As previously indicated, on April 17, 2007, a group of executives, journalists and employees of RCTV311 filed an administrative remedy seeking nullification of the administrative decision derived from Resolution No. 002 and Communication No. 0424. The applicants also requested an injunction and, failing this, unspecified interim protection measures. The PoliticalAdministrative Chamber of the SCJ admitted the appeal for nullification, but declared inadmissible the injunction and the unspecified interim measure. The appeal for nullification has been halted at the evidentiary stage since June 2008 (supra para. 111). The Court will now analyze the proceedings on the appeal for nullification, the injunction and the unspecified interim measure that were filed together. A.2.1. Appeal for nullification i) Reasonable time 255. In order to analyze whether Article 8(1) of the Convention was violated by the presumed failure to comply with the right to a reasonable time in relation to the appeal for nullification, the Court will examine the four criteria established in its case law in this regard: (a) the complexity of the matter; (b) the procedural activity of the interested party; (c) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and (d) the effects produced on the legal situation of the persons involved in the proceedings.312 The Court recalls that it is for the State to justify, based on Cf. Those who filed this remedy included RCTV on behalf of its shareholders and the following presumed victims: Marcel Granier, Eladio Lárez, Daniela Bergami, Edgardo Mosca, Anani Hernández, Inés Bacalao, José Simón Escalona, Isabel Valero, Odila Rubin, Oswaldo Quintana, Eduardo Sapene, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, Soraya Castellano, María Arriaga and Larissa Patiño (evidence file, folio 2794). 311 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 155, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. 312