Chamber”) on August 4, 2005 and on October 4, 2005, respectively. According to the petitioner, the petitions for precautionary amparo were rejected and that a decision on the grounds of the petitions for remedy had not been made by the above mentioned chamber even though the law stipulates a maximum period of 10 months to do so. 14. The petitioner added that on November 15, 2005, he filed in the Office of Comptroller General administrative petitions for reconsideration of the resolutions whereby he was politically disqualified for public office, and that those petitions were declared inadmissible by the Comptroller General on January 9, 2006. The petitioner also stated that on June 21, 2006, he filed in the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court (hereinafter “the Constitutional Chamber”) an action of unconstitutionality 2 against Article 105 of the Organic Law of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic which establishes the sole authority of the Comptroller to politically disqualify an individual as an accessory penalty to the finding of administrative responsibility. The petitioner explained that the grounds for this action are that the article in question violates due process, it violates the principle of non bis in idem, it violates the principle of presumption of innocence, and, also, it allows for sanctions that are wholly disproportionate in relation to the main penalty of administrative responsibility and fine. The petitioner pointed out that, in that action, he challenged both administrative actions of political disqualification together. The petitioner added that the Constitutional Chamber has not issued a decision on this petition for remedy either. The petitioner considers that the exception for unwarranted delay established in Article 46.2 (c) of the ACHR is applicable in this case. 15. Finally, the petitioner added that on February 25, 2008, the Comptroller General of the Republic went to the National Electoral Council to place on record a list of 400 persons, among them the petitioner himself, who had been politically disqualified with the purpose of preventing them from running for office in the elections to be held in November of this year. B. The State 16. As indicated in paragraphs 3 and 7, as of the date this report was approved, the state has not responded to the petition. V. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 1. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis y ratione materiae 17. The petitioner is authorized by Article 44 of the Convention to file petitions on his behalf. The alleged victim in this case was under the jurisdiction of the Venezuelan state at the time the alleged events took place. For its part, Venezuela ratified the American Convention on August 9, 1977. Therefore, the Commission has competence ratione personaeto examine the petition. 18. The Commission is competent ratione loci to examine the petition given that it alleges violations of rights protected under the American Convention that allegedly took place within the territory of a state party to the Convention. 19. The Commission is also competent ratione temporis since the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected under the American Convention was already in force for the state at the time the events alleged in the petition presumably took place. 20. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, because the petition alleges presumed violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. 2 Article 65 of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela establishes that: They will not be able to opt to any post in popular election whoever has been convicted of a crime during the exercise of its functions and other that affect the public patrimony, within the timeframe set by law, from the compliance of the prison sentence and according to the gravity of the crime. 3