89 or evidence.337 The fact that they were unable to intervene in a proceeding that clearly had an impact on the property rights of RCTV was an evident violation of the right of defense. 307. Lastly, the Court recalls that, in May 2007, the representatives of RCTV338 filed an appeal against the interim measures issued by the Constitutional Chamber in the context of the action on joint and separate interests that assigned the use of property owned by RCTV to CONATEL. The Court underscores that the interim measures issued in 2007 remain in force to date and that the State continues using RCTV’s property to transmit the signal of the State channel TVes (supra para. 112). In this regard, Court reiterates that it must examine the facts relating to the appeal against the interim measures under the right to a reasonable time contained in Article 8(1) of the Convention. Thus, the Court notes that, since June 2007, no action has been taken in the proceedings to decide this appeal (supra para. 112). The Court also underlines that the State has not justified the existence of this delay and lack of activity. Consequently, the Court finds that the reasonable time has been violated in these proceedings. 308. Based on the above, the Court declares that Venezuela has violated 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 Nestares, Jean Nestares, Fernando Nestares, Alicia Phelps de Tovar and Francisco J. Nestares. B) Alleged violation of Article 25 of the Convention – judicial protection B.1. Application for constitutional amparo B.1.1. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 309. The Commission argued that Article 25 had been violated owing to an unjustified delay in deciding the application for constitutional amparo. The Commission referred to both the presumed violation of Article 25 of the Convention and to the presumed failure to comply with the respective deadlines established in the domestic law of Venezuela. Specifically, the Commission argued that “[i]n this case, it is clear that the formalities prescribed by Venezuelan law for applications for amparo were not observed. Also, it is not possible to claim that the decision delivered more than three months after the application was filed, was the prompt recourse required under Article 25(1) of the Convention.” In addition, the Commission argued that “the delay in deciding the application for amparo violated the right to a ‘simple and prompt recourse’ […] for protection against acts that violate fundamental rights,’ as established by Article 25(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of the shareholders, executives and employees who jointly filed the application for amparo.” 310. The Commission argued that “the failure to observe the deadline prescribed by law had a real and serious effect, since while the decision on the application for amparo was still pending, in violation of Venezuelan law, on March 29, 2007, the MPPTI issued Communication No. 0424 in which it announced that RCTV’s concession would not be renewed.” The Commission concluded that “the delay in deciding the application for amparo was not only a violation of Venezuelan law, but also had the effect of enabling the consummation of the very violations that the application for amparo was intended to prevent.” Cf. Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela. Decision No. 957 of May 25, 2007. Case No. 07-0731 (evidence file, folio 3486). 337 The brief was presented by Gustavo J. Reyna, Pedro Perera Riera, José Valentín González P., José Humberto Frías and Alvaro Guerrero Hardy in their capacity as “legal representatives” of RCTV (evidence file, folios 3716 to 3719). 338