responsible for the same irregular activity and investigated during the same period,” 149 and iii) “the reaffirmation where the petitioners adduce that the decisive order under analysis, lacks cause, because it does not stem from the same elements that determine punishable acts that could carry civil or criminal elements, which is in any light not in conformity with the prior analysis, thereby demonstrating that the argument is based on the superficial analysis of fiscal oversight matters.”150 4.7. Imposition of the sanction of disqualification151 81. On September 26, 2005, the Comptroller General issued a resolution152 indicating “the severity of the irregular activity committed, punishable through the declaration of administrative responsibility of November 2, 2004, affirmed on March 28, 2005 […], as well as the reoccurrence of the irregular activity that is the subject of the sanction in the aforementioned terms,” determining “the imposition on [Mr.] LÓPEZ MENDOZA, […], of the sanction of disqualification from holding public office for a period of six (06) years.”153 4.8. Motion to Reconsider 82. On November 15, 2005, Mr. López Mendoza filed a Motion to Reconsider,154 noting “the manifest lack of cause of the contested act, which thereby is in violation of the right to a defense null ab initio […].”155 Moreover, Mr. López Mendoza argued that “nowhere in 149 Resolution of March 28, 2005, of the Office of Determination of Responsibility, supra note 147, folio 370. 150 On April 5, 2005, the resolution was notified to Mr. López Mendoza. Case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 10, folios 384 and 385). 151 In this regard, the State reported that the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice had established that the Comptroller cound not use the additional sanctions of dismissal and suspension in relation to the persons elected by popular vote and has established that a sanction for disqualification can only operate when the respective final mandate has ended. In particular, the Constitutional Chamber stated that “it is not possible by way of an administrative sanction to dismiss an popularly elected public official, [...] notwithstanding, the Comptroller General of the Republic can excercise, in relation to this representative of popular election, any of the other administrative sanctions that do not imply the definitive loss of their investiture. As a consequence, it may impose fines, disqualification […] and suspension […].” Judgment N° 1.056 of May 31, 2005 (Comptroller General of the Republic). Moreover, the Constitutional Chamber has noted that “the sanction imposed can not hinder the functions of the people's representative in the period for which he was elected, [and therefore] said disqualification must begin to take effect upon expiration of the statutory period for the sanctioned official was elected, or upon the effective end of his functions as of the new elections.” Judgment No. 174, dated March 8, 2005 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice. Case of the Chamber of the Municipality of Sucre of the State of Miranda. Cited in Judgment No. 1266 of August 6, 2008, of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice supra note 31, folio 639. 152 Cf. Resolution 01-00-235 of September 26, 2005, issued by the Comptroller General Republic (case file of annexes to the application, annex 12, tome 1, folios 391 to 394). 153 Resolution 01-00-235 of September 26, 2005, issued by the Comptroller General of the Republic, supra note 152, folios 393 and 394. On October 28, 2005, the resolution was notified to Mr. López Mendoza. In the corresponding official letter it was reported that “against said decision, an Motion to reconsider before the Comptroller could be filed, in a period of fifteen (15) working days as of the date of notification, pursuant to that enshrined in Article 94 of the Organic Law of Administrative Procedures.” Moreover, it was indicated that “an appeal for annulment could also be filed […] before the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, in the period of six (6) days as of the date of […] notificatio, pursuant to that provided in section 20 of Article 21 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice.” Official letter No. 08-01-1074 of September 27, 2005 of the Office of Determination of Responsibility (case file of annexes to the application, , Tome VI, folios 3468 to 3471). 154 Cf. Motion to reconsider of Mr. López Mendoza presented on November 15, 2005 (case file of annexes to the application, annex 34, Tome IV, folios 3472 to 3492). 36