82 relevant impact on the legal situation of the individual, the proceedings must advance with greater diligence in order to decide the case as soon as possible. 318 275. In this case, the Court finds that neither the Commission nor the representatives presented evidence that would allow it to conclude whether relevant effects had been produced on the legal situation of those involved or reasons that would signify that special speed should have been given to these proceedings, so that it does not find that such effects have been proved. e) Conclusion regarding the reasonable time 276. Having analyzed the four elements to determine whether the time was reasonable and bearing in mind that a decision on the appeal for nullification remains pending at the present time without the State having been able to justify this delay, the Court concludes 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. ii) Other guarantees alleged in relation to the appeal for nullification Arguments of the representatives 277. The representatives argued the “lack of independence and impartiality of the authority called on to decide the administrative appeal for nullification” and referred to the existence of a “general context of Judiciary’s lack of independence in Venezuela [and to the issue of] decisions and […] specific statements by the [SCJ’s Political-Administrative] Chamber concerning the termination of the RCTV concession.” Considerations of the Court 278. Regarding the alleged “lack of independence and impartiality of the authority called on to decide the administrative appeal for nullification,” the Court considers that this context was not duly alleged and presented, because no evidence was provided that would allow it to conclude that it existed in the instant case. In addition, it is not sufficient to make a general mention of an alleged context for the Court to be able to conclude that there has been a violation; rather, it is necessary to present specific arguments on the possible effect on the proceedings that could be derived from the lack of independence and impartiality. Therefore, in the terms in which it was presented by the representatives, the Court is unable to conclude that there was an alleged violation of independence and impartiality in the said contentious proceedings. A.2.2. Request for an unspecified interim measure Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 279. The Commission argued the violation of Article 25(1) of the Convention owing to the delay in the decision. In this regard, it indicated that “the more than three months’ delay in ruling on the petition seeking an unspecified interim measure deprived the request of any 318 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, para. 155, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, para. 196.