10. On the other hand, the Court received amicus curiae briefs6 from the Asociación Venezolana de Derecho Constitucional [Venezuelan Association of Constitutional Law]7; The Human Rights Foundation8; Mr. Jorge Castañeda Gutman9; Mr. Hugo Mario Wortman Jofre,10 and The Carter Center.11 These briefs develop diverse ideas regarding judicial guarantees and political rights. 11. By means of a note from the Secretariat of the Court on March 8, 2011, the parties were requested to, together with their final written arguments, present their supporting arguments and documentation, where applicable, in relation to the various topics concerning this case.12 6 Apart from the amicus curiae, the Court received other briefs that are not of any use in the present case, and as such, are not to be admitted nor mentioned in this Judgment. 7 The brief was presented on December 20, 2010, by Jesús María Casal, Lolymar Hernández, and José Vicente Haro, President and member of the Board of Directors of the Venezuelan Association of Constitutional Law, respectively. 8 The brief was presented on February 25, 2011, by Mr. Javier El-Hage, as Executive Director of The Human Rights Foundation. 9 The brief was presented on March 1, 2011, by Mr. Jorge Castañeda Gutman. 10 The brief was presented on March 1, 2011, by Mr. Hugo Mario Wortman Jofre. 11 The brief was presented on March 16, 2011, by Mr. John B. Hardman, in representation of The Carter Center. 12 For the Inter-American Commission: a) The Commission indicated in the application that a period had passed of 2 years to resolve the petition which had been presented in the contentious-administrative forum and this did not comply with a reasonable period. It requested specification in more detail on the reasons for this excessive delay. b) In its application, the Commission argued that the appeal for annulment of the facts in relation to the donations of PDVSA had not come about in three years since the appeal was filed. From this, violations of the Convention ensued. Nevertheless, in the case file it is evident that the appeal was answered on April 1, 2009, prior to the presentation of the application to the Court. In the opinion of the Commission, are there still violations to the Convention in relation to the appeal for annulment? For the Inter-American commission, the representatives and the State: c) Taking into account the type of official exchange rate from the American dollar at the time of the facts, how much, in U.S. dollars, is the total sum of the fines imposed on Mr. López Mendoza? Similarly, specifying the official exchange rate into U.S. dollars of the amount of the donations given to the Civil Association Primero Justicia. d) Article 105 of the LOCGRSNCF is adjusted to the standards noted in Articles 29(a) and 30 of the Convention and in the Advisory Opinion OC-6 of 1986? e) Of the case file provided to the Court it is deemed that the Commission and represenatives have argued that, due to the nature of the administrative proceedings, these do not offer guarantees like those in a criminal proceeding. The State expressed otherwise. In this way, the following was requested, why would have a criminal proceeding offered Mr. López Mendoza more guarantees in the present case? Likewise, indicate, which were, in the opinion of the Commission and the representatives, the specific facts that impacted the judicial guarantees? Specifically, what administrative or judicial remedies were not filed? and what aspect of the right to defense was not exercised? f) Which were the specific difficulties faced to prevent the remedies from meeting the standards of due process? g) Comparative law is a source of interpretation in international law. The parties were requested to present their arguments on the norms and practices of other regions, were non-legal spaces exist that permit the use of sanctioning administrative measures that include the disqualification from holding public office or other similar measures. As an example, the following were mentioned: Argentina (Articles 30 and 33 of the Law No. 25.164 of the National Public Labor Law), Colombia (Article 44 of the Disciplinary Code – jurisdiction of the Attorney General’s Office of the Nation), Costa Rica (Article 146 of the Electoral Code - Law No.8765), México (Article 13 of the Federal Law of Administrative Responsibility of Public Servants), Perú (Law 28175 of Public Employment and Article 159 of Supreme Decree N° 005-90-PCM Rules of Procedure of the Law of Administrative Career and Remunerations) and Dominican Republic (Article 84 of the Law No. 41-08 of Public Office). In this sense, further elaboration was sought regarding the general interpretation of what this entails in terms of political rights, as one of the elements of interpretation of international law. For the State: h) What is the state of the compliant filed before the Attorney General of the Republic stated regarding the alleged homicide attempts against Mr. López Mendoza? i) Clarification of the bodies that can declare administrative responsibility and those that are able to impose sanctions established in Article 105 LOCGRSNCF j) What is the evidentiary standard used in the investigation stage of administrative responsibility and the declaration of disqualification 8