83 chance of efficacy since, by July 31, 2007, the government decision not to extend RCTV’s concession had already been implemented and RCTV had been forced off the airwaves.” The Commission concluded that “the failure to issue a prompt and immediate ruling on the request for an unspecified interim measure that was filed in conjunction with the administrative remedy seeking nullification violated Article 25(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of RCTV’s shareholders, executives and employees who are [presumed] victims in this case.” 280. Regarding the unspecified interim measure, the representatives argued “that it had been requested as an alternative measure in case the amparo was denied; there was a delay of more than three […] months in the decision, and then it was denied.” They also indicated that, when ruling on the interim measure, the Court should only have referred to “whether or not a fact existed that could constitute possible irreparable harm to a fundamental right”; however, but that by “anticipating an opinion on the merits of the matter” it had infringed the guarantee of an impartial judge. The representatives also argued that the interim measure was processed “negligently and with a notable delay, even though, due to its nature, it required an urgent ruling, [and] that this delay and this paralysis patently violated the right to judicial protection and to due process.” 281. The State presented no specific arguments on this point. Considerations of the Court 282. The Court reiterates that the amparo should be a “simple and prompt” remedy pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Convention,319 and indicates that other remedies should be decided within a “reasonable time” pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Convention. In this case, the unspecified interim measure was filed together with the appeal for nullification and the injunction; however, the Court has no evidence to allow it to conclude that the interim measure is similar in nature to the injunction. Indeed, the Court notes that Venezuelan laws establish the admissibility of the application for amparo against any administrative act that violates or threatens to violate a constitutional right or guarantee; the application for amparo may be presented together with the appeal for nullification, in which case the judge “if he considers it appropriate to protect the constitutional guarantee, shall suspend the effects of the appealed act as a guarantee of the violated constitutional right, for the duration of the trial.”320 Meanwhile, the adoption of an interim measure seeks “to safeguard [the] legal right cited and to guarantee the results of the trial”321 and, in this case, it is not necessary for a fundamental right to have been violated or under threat of violation. 283. The Court notes that although both the injunction and the interim measure may obtain the same result, such as the suspension of the effects of the administrative act whose nullification has been requested,322 “[t]he difference between the amparo and other interim measures is that the amparo relates exclusively to the violation of constitutional rights and guarantees.”323 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, para. 107, and Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, para. 107. 319 Organic Law on Amparo of Constitutional Rights and Guarantees of December 18, 1988, article 5. Available at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/legislacion/loadgc.html. 320 Organic Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of May 20, 2004, article 19. Law in force at the time of the facts (evidence file, folios 25755 and 25756). 321 Organic Law on Amparo of Constitutional Rights and Guarantees of December 18, 1988, article 5. Available at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/legislacion/loadgc.html. 322 323 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, para. 168.