published in the Official Gazette of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and in the official newspaper of the corresponding state or municipality. 29. Under the provisions of the law, the purpose of the recourse of nullification with regard to administrative matters is to determine the legality and/or constitutionality of an administrative action with general or specific application and, in the event the effects are nullified, the administrative action would also become null. With regard to the action of unconstitutionality, its purpose is to determine the constitutionality of, among others, laws passed by the National Assembly. In the event a law is found to be incompatible with the Constitution, it is the responsibility of the Constitutional Chamber to declare the partial or total, as the case may be, nullification of the law. 30. In the foregoing case, the record shows that the petitioner pursued the recourse of nullification against the administrative actions that determined his administrative responsibility on August 4, 2005 and on October 4, 2005, respectively. The record also shows that on June 21, 2006, the petitioner filed an action of unconstitutionality in the Constitutional Chamber against Article 105 of the Organic Law of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic. The IACHR considers that both recourses pursued by the petitioner are adequate in the sense that a decision could result either in the annulment of the effects of the administrative action that determined his administrative responsibility and that served as grounds for his political disqualification, or in voiding the effects of the law that authorizes the Comptroller General of the Republic to impose an accessory sanction of political disqualification. 31. According to available information, 2 years and 9 months elapsed without the Politico Administrative Chamber having issued a definitive judgment. The Commission notes that, in accordance with Venezuelan law, Article 19 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Court of Justice establishes a series of steps for the resolution of either the recourse of nullification or the action of unconstitutionality that, added together, do not exceed a period of 8 months. Also, more than 2 years have passed without the Constitutional Chamber having issued a decision on the action for unconstitutionality filed by the petitioner. 32. It does not appear, prima facie, that the matter to be decided upon domestically is particularly complex or that the delay could be due to reasons beyond the control of Venezuelan authorities. On the contrary, this involves a straightforward analysis of law whereby the appropriate judges must evaluate whether an administrative action and a law violate the Venezuelan constitution. In any case, the state did not present arguments to justify the delay in resolving the recourses filed by the petitioner and thus failed to meet the burden of proof that it is required of the state in these matters. 33. In addition, the Commission takes notice that the deadline for candidates to register to run for elective office in the elections to be held on November 23, 2008, expires on August 12 of this year. Without prejudging the merits of this case, the Commission notes that the lack of a timely resolution of the petitions for domestic remedies could imply that those remedies become ineffective or pointless. 34. The Commission considers that the above mentioned elements are sufficient to conclude that, in this case, there has been an unwarranted delay in the resolution of the petitions for domestic remedies filed and, in that sense, under the provisions of Article 46.2 (c) of the American Convention the petitioner is exempt from having to exhaust domestic remedies. 35. The Commission reiterates that claims of exception to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies under the provisions of Article 46.2 of the Convention are closely linked to the determination of possible violations of certain rights protected by the Convention such as guarantee of access to justice. However, Article 46.2 of the American Convention, by its nature and purpose, is a regulation with autonomous content, vis á vis the substantive regulations of the Convention. Therefore, the determination of whether the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies established in that rule are applicable in this case must be made individually and prior to the analysis of the merits of the case since it relies on a different standard than the one used to determine the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the 6