93 321. The State presented no specific arguments on this point. B.2.2.Considerations of the Court 322. As already indicated, the Court has considered that, in the terms of Article 25(1) of the Convention, the amparo should be a “simple and prompt” recourse, while nullification should be decided within a “reasonable time” pursuant to Article 8(1) of this instrument. In this case, the Court recalls that the injunction request348 was filed at the same time as the appeal for nullification and the request for an unspecified interim measure (supra para. 107). In this regard, the Court notes that the Political-Administrative Chamber took from April 17 to May 22, 2007, to decide on the injunction, despite the 3-day time limit to do so. Despite this, the Court notes that the injunction was decided before the date on which RCTV was closed down. In this regard, it recalls that the injunction request asked that: (i) [the State] refrain from taking any decision that could prevent RCTV from transmitting its programming until a final judgment had been delivered on the merits of the case, and (ii) that the necessary measures be taken to ensure that the station could continue operating with the same frequencies and throughout national territory, until the final ruling on the action. 323. In the Court’s opinion, in this case, the time that elapsed between the presentation of the injunction request and the respective decision did not have an adverse effect on the judicial protection of the presumed victims, because the injunction was decided before the closure of RCTV. Consequently, the Court finds that, in the case of this injunction, the State did not violate the right to judicial protection, established in Article 25(1), in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention. IX. RIGHT TO PROPERTY Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 324. The Commission found that Venezuela had not violated the right to property established in Article 21 of the Convention. Regarding the deprivation of assets, the Commission explained that, for the deprivation of a person’s assets to be compatible with the right to property established in the Convention it must be based on reasons of public utility or social interest, subject to payment of just compensation, and restricted to the cases and according to the forms established by law. It added that, in order to find a violation of the right to property, the effect on the personal property of the presumed victims must be clearly established. In this way, it is possible to distinguish between State actions that affect the rights of a legal person and those that affect the rights of a natural person. On this basis, the Commission declared that the presumed victims had not presented sufficient evidence of the direct effect on the personal property of the shareholders presented as victims as a result of the State’s seizure of RCTV’s tangible assets. 325. Regarding the non-renewal of the RCTV concession, the Commission considered that given the uncertainty with regard to the applicable legal framework and its proper interpretation under Venezuelan domestic law, under these procedures it cannot be concluded that RCTV had an acquired right to the automatic renewal of its concession. It added that, RCTV was entitled Article 5 of the Organic Law on Protection of Constitutional Rights and Guarantees, in force at the time of the facts, established that: “[w]hen an application for amparo is made against administrative acts at the same time as the contentious administrative recourse based on the violation of a constitutional right, the exercise of the recourse shall be admissible at any time, even after the time limits established in the Law, and it shall not be necessary to exhaust the administrative channel previously.” Organic Law on Amparo of Constitutional Rights and Guarantees of Deceber 18, 1988, article 5. Available at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/legislacion/loadgc.html. 348