7 Nestares, Jean Nestares, Fernando Nestares, Alicia Phelps de Tovar, Francisco J. Nestares”37. 27. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 25 of the Convention on judicial protection, the Court examined the processing of the application for constitutional amparo and concluded that “although the Supreme Court of Justice delayed slightly more than three months to rule on the application for constitutional amparo, this period was not excessive for deciding the application, and did not influence its effectiveness, particularly since its inadmissibility was based on the requirement that the appropriate remedy should be used against the administrative decisions contained in Communication No. 0424 and Resolution No. 002 prior to making an application for amparo.”38 The Court also examined the processing of the injunction request and concluded that although the Political-Administrative Chamber took more than the three working days established for this purpose, it did so before the date on which RCTV was closed down.39 In this understanding, the Court concluded that “the State did not violate the right to judicial protection established in Article 25(1), in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention.”40 Reparations and re-establishment of violated rights 28. The violations of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention verified by the Court could, in theory, be redressed legally by the simple declaration in the judgment that the violation occurred and, in this regard, by determining that the judgment, per se, constituted the reparation. However, in its case law, the Court has usually established the pertinence of diverse measures of reparation addressed at repairing the harm, restoring the violated rights, and determining measures of non-repetition in each case. 29. This is what the Court has decided to do in this case. Hence, considering, in particular, “the circumstances of the case sub judice, the harm that the violations committed caused to the victims, and also the consequences of a non-pecuniary nature that they endured as a result of the violations of Articles 8 and 13 of the American Convention, declared to the detriment of the victims, the Court finds it pertinent to establish the following measures of satisfaction and guarantees of nonrepetition” (Para. 371). 30. The judgment found concurrent violations of the rights to freedom of expression, of its exercise without discrimination, and of judicial guarantees, concluding, based on the proven facts, that the decision not to renew the RCTV concession was not based on a valid technical or legal reason, but rather to weaken the plurality represented by critical voices. 31. Consequently, although the Court has not determined that the alleged right to property in relation to the concession granted to RCTV has been violated in this case, owing to the verified violations of several provisions of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, the judgment required the re-establishment of the concession of the frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum corresponding to television’s channel 2. To this end, and to ensure that this measure is not illusory, the Court ordered “the return of the assets subject to interim measures, because they are essential for the effective operation of the concession.”41 37 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 308. 38 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 317. 39 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 322. 40 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 323. 41 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 381.