87 “Venezuelan law requires that objections to interim measures be decided “promptly,” and […] considered that this must be a ‘simple and prompt remedy,’ in keeping with Article 25(1) of the Convention. Specifically, with regard to the instant case, the Commission argued that Article 25 of the Convention had been violated because it did “not find any explanation for the long delay in issuing a ruling on the objection to the interim measures that resulted in the seizure of RCTV’s assets, measures that have remained in place the entire time that the decision on the objection to them has been pending.” 299. Lastly, regarding the SCJ’s lack of impartiality, the Commission mentioned “some context [presented in] its special report on Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela, published in 2009, [in which the Inter-America Commission] characterized the ‘lack of judicial independence and autonomy vis-à-vis the political power’ [as] one of the weakest points in Venezuelan democracy.” In addition, the Commission argued that “in the instant case, the highest ranking authorities in the executive branch of the Venezuelan government stated repeatedly, and in no uncertain terms, their opinions about RCTV and their opposition to renewal of its concession.” Lastly, the Commission argued that the actions of the SCJ, “when analyzed as a whole and in the context described earlier, reveal that the SCJ was using proceedings that were lawful from a purely procedural standpoint to accomplish objectives of the executive branch.” 300. The representatives alleged, with regard to the right of defense of the presumed victims, that “the Constitutional Chamber never summoned RCTV, its executives, shareholders, journalists or employees to appear at the proceedings in question, not even to contest the interim measures, thus openly and arbitrarily violating the law and the rights relating to defense, due process and judicial guarantees.” The representatives also referred to the delay in the actions of the SCJ, emphasizing that “[i]t was surprising and extremely revealing to note the procedural speed and agility with which the courts acted on some occasions to adopt some decisions – all in favor of the government’s interests – such as the one that deprived RCTV of the possession and effective ownership of its assets. This contrasted with the slowness, inactivity and procedural delay that occurred, and that can be attributed to the organ of the State, when RCTV requested a measure or action in the proceedings aimed at protecting its fundamental rights and the guarantees of due process.” 301. Regarding the SCJ’s alleged lack of impartiality, the representatives argued that “[t]his case […] reveals a true instrumentalization of justice to benefit the interests of the Executive branch of government. The facts of the case represent a clear example of the lack of procedural integrity of the actions of the Chambers of the Supreme Court of Justice and reveal a total lack of independence of the highest judicial organ.” The representatives concluded that “[a]ll these irregular and arbitrary procedural acts, which contravened the adjectival law, and which are not admissible in the normal practice of an impartial organ for the administration of justice, have constituted and characterized an additional violation of the rights of RCTV, its shareholders, executives and journalists established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention to have access to effective, opportune and expedite justice.” 302. The State argued that the “Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court issued interim measures which sought to safeguard the joint and separate interests of the users of the television service, guaranteeing their constitutional and legal rights to receive objective, opportune and true information through the media. Therefore, part of the RCTV assets are under special judicial protection, guaranteeing collective interests and the general interest of the Venezuelan population.” Lastly, the State argued during the public hearing in this case that “the interim measures have an instrumental purpose to preserve the results of the proceedings,” adding that the “judge must decide the interim measures immediately even […] without notification, to avoid the person against whom they are addressed fraudulently