40 unspecified interim measure.167 The Chamber declared this inadmissible on July 31, 2007.168 On November 29, 2007, May 27, 2008, and May 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed new requests for an unspecified interim measure in which they argued new facts. The first two requests were declared inadmissible by the Political-Administrative Chamber in decisions of March 26, 2008, and July 30, 2008, respectively.169 In the case of the third request, as of August 2011, no separate case file had been opened. 111. El October 9, 2007, in an order issued by the Trial Court of the Political-Administrative Chamber, the evidentiary stage of the proceedings was opened. 170 On March 6, 2008, that Court issued its decision on the admissibility of the evidence offered. 171 On May 7 and June 10, 2008, the presumed victims and the State, respectively, filed appeals against that decision. On June 19, 2008, the Court admitted the appeals and referred the case files to the PoliticalAdministrative Chamber. Between August 12, 2008, and October 22, 2009, the presumed victims filed eight request for the presiding justice to issue a decision on the appeals. In December 2011, when presenting observations on the merits, the State advised that the administrative remedy seeking nullification remained pending before the PoliticalAdministrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.172 At the date of this judgment, the said administrative remedy had not been decided; the decision on the appeals had not been issued and the action continued at the evidentiary stage. 173 C.3 Objection to the interim measures issued during the processing of the action on joint and separate interests and the constitutional amparo 112. On May 31, 2007, the RCTV representatives filed an objection to Decision No. 957, issued by the Constitutional Chamber on May 25, 2007, in the action on joint and separate interests (Case No. 07-0731).174 On June 13, 2007, the RCTV representatives filed a brief with evidence in the objection proceedings. To date the evidence has not been processed. 113. In addition, during the proceedings under Case No. 07-0731, on May 28, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a request before the Constitutional Chamber that the case be dismissed. On June 1, 2007, that court decided to refuse the dismissal and join cases Nos. 07-0720 and 07-0731.175 C.4 Criminal complaints Cf. Affidavit attesting urgency of the administrative remedy seeking nullification, Case No. 07-0411), filed with the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on May 24, 2007 (evidence file, folio 3690). 168 Cf. Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, Political-Administrative Chamber, Case No. 07-0411, Decision No. 1,337 of July 31, 2007 (evidence file, folios 4625 to 4642). 169 Cf. Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, Political-Administrative Chamber, Case No. 07-0411, Decision No. 342 of March 26, 2008 (evidence file, folios 4549 to 4564). SCJ, Political-Administrative Chamber, Case No. 07-0411, Decision No. 883 of July 30, 2008 (evidence file, folios 4565 to4580). 167 170 Order of the Trial Court of the Political-Administrative Chamber of October 9, 2007 (evidence file, folio 28627). Cf. Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, Political-Administrative Chamber, Case No. 07-0411, Decision No. 107 of March 6, 2008 (evidence file, folios 29464 to 29530). 171 172 Cf. Observations of the State on the IACHR Admissibility Report of December 4, 2011 (evidence file, folio 3572). Cf. In its final arguments, the State indicated that “this appeal is pending in the Supreme Court of Justice and due to a backlog of cases, it has not been decided at this time.” 173 Cf. Contestation of the precautionary measure decreed by the Constitutional Chamber by Decision No. 957 issued on May 25, 2007, filed on May 31, 2007 (evidence file, folios 3716 to 3719). 175 Cf. Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0720/07-0731, Decision No. 1,075 of June 1, 2007 (evidence file, folios 4708 to 4714). There is a dissenting opinion of Justice José Leonardo Requena Cabello who considered that the purpose of the two cases and the constitutional rights cited were distinct (evidence file, folios 4715 to 4720). 174