98 343. Having determined this, the Court will now examine the representatives’ argument that the non-renewal of the concession was comparable to an illegitimate elimination of the presumed victims’ right to property with regard to the concession, in the understanding that this was an asset protected under the American Convention. On this point, the Court has already concluded that no right existed to the renewal or automatic extension of the concession (supra para. 180), so that, in this case, there are no arguments or regulations that would allow the Court to interpret that Venezuela’s laws created a right to the extension of concessions that benefited the company. Accordingly, the possibility that the State would renew RCTV’s concession for the use of the electromagnetic spectrum in 2007 cannot be considered an acquired right to an asset already incorporated into the company’s property. This possibility was a mere expectation of renewal that was conditional on the State’s authority to establish controls over a resource that it owned. Consequently, the financial benefits that the shareholders might have received as a result of the renewal of the concession cannot be considered acquired rights or assets that were part of the direct property of the shareholders and that could be protected by Article 21 of the American Convention. 344. The Court also notes that RCTV did own a property right as a result of the 20-year concession granted based on Decree No. 1577, for which the State had granted a license. However, it finds that the State did not prevent RCTV’s use of the electromagnetic spectrum or arbitrarily interfere in the exercise of the rights derived from the concession contract while it was in effect, acts that could truly have violated the right to property of the presumed victims. 2. The interim measures imposed by the Constitutional Chamber 345. The Court has established that the adoption of an interim measure in the domestic jurisdiction does not constitute per se a violation of the right to property. Even though it does constitute a limitation of this right, insofar as it affects the ability of the individual to freely dispose of his possessions, it does not signify a transfer of the ownership of the property rights.363 Nevertheless, the Court considers that the adoption of actual interim measures must be justified previously by the inexistence of any other type of measure that is less restrictive of the right to property. Also, the disposal of the property cannot be definitive and must be restricted exclusively to its administration and conservation.364 346. Additionally, judicial authorities should adopt and supervise such measures, taking into account that if the reasons that justified the interim measure disappear, the judge must assess the pertinence of continuing the restriction. 365 The said judicial authorities must also consider the possibility of moderating the impact of the duration of the civil proceedings on the ability of the presumed victims to dispose of their possessions, so that it does not affect their right to property disproportionately.366 347. In this case, on May 25, 2007, the Constitutional Chamber of the SCJ issued ruling No. 956, in which it admitted the application for amparo against the MINCI, the MPPTI and the Venezuelan Public Television Foundation and ordered, by means of unspecified interim measures, the provisional transfer to CONATEL of the use of the assets owned by RCTV, 367 so that CONATEL could arrange the use of these assets by TVes, because the latter did not have the necessary infrastructure to transmit nationwide (supra para. 95). Also, to protect the 363 178. Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, para. 187, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, para. 364 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, paras. 187 and 188. 365 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, para. 188. 366 Cf. Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, paras.180 and 183. Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0720, Decision No. 956 of May 25, 2007 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 64, folio 3461). 367