190. This law referred to the "brief, summary and effective" nature of the remedy and established that courts must give "preference to the processing of amparo to any other matter"191. 204. Despite these provisions, the Commission notes that for most of the duration of the process under the judicial authorities, they were discussing jurisdiction issues. Indeed, after the Fourth Court declined jurisdiction and referred the case to the Constitutional Court, and despite repeated requests of the victims, the plea was not resolved until ten months later, on May 26, 2005, when the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that it did not accept the challenges to the jurisdiction. In turn, the judgment on the merits of the amparo was issued on July 27, 2005, over a year after its introduction; the State has not presented any justification for the delay of a remedy that for its own nature should be resolved with the greater immediacy possible. 205. In view of the above, the Commission considers that the amparo remedy did not comply with the guarantee of reasonable time, which was an additional factor of the denial of justice suffered by the victims in the terms stated in this report. Consequently, the Commission concludes that in the present case the breach of the reasonable time guarantee under the amparo proceeding was an additional violation of the right to a fair trial and judicial protection established in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the Convention American in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the same instrument to the detriment of Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón, and Thais Coromoto Peña. VI. CONCLUSIONS 206. In accordance with the considerations of facts and law expressed in this report on merits, the Commission concludes that the Venezuelan State is responsible for the violation of political rights, the right to freedom of expression, the right to equality before the law and non-discrimination, fair trial and judicial protection embodied in Articles 23, 13, 24, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the same instrument to the detriment of Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón, and Thais Coromoto Peña. 207. The Commission considers that, based on the available information, the possible violation of the right to personal integrity is subsumed in the violations found throughout this report. The Commission has no information enabling it to determine the need for a separate determination on Article 5 of the American Convention. 190 Cfr. I/A Court H.R. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, paras. 155 y 156. Organic Law on Protection of Rights and Constitutional Guarantees of 1988, available at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/legislacion/loadgc.html., establishes in its relevant parts: Article 22. The court hearing the application for amparo shall have the power to restore the juridical situation, regardless of considerations of mere form without any preliminary investigation that precedes it. In this case, an order of protection must be motivated and be based on a means test that constitutes a serious presumption of violation or threat of violation. Article 23. If the Judge chooses to restore immediately the juridical situation under the previous article, he will order the authority, institution, social organization or individual alleged to violate or threaten the right or constitutional guarantee, that within forty-eight (48) hours, counted from the respective notification, file a report on the alleged violation or threat that gave rise to the injunction request. The lack of the corresponding report will be understood as acceptance of the offenses in question. Article 26. The court hearing the amparo, will set within ninety-six (96) hours following the presentation of the report by the alleged offender or the expiration of their respective term, the opportunity for the parties or their legal representatives express, orally and publicly, the respective arguments. Carried out that measure, the Judge will have a non-extendable term of twenty-four (24) hours to decide the application for constitutional amparo. 191 Organic Law on Protection of Rights and Constitutional Guarantees of 1988, arts. 4, 13, available at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/legislacion/loadgc.html. 41