judicial action” 177; iii) “the Municipal Councils may approve additional budget allocations to the Expenses Budget, per request of the Mayor, with funding from-among others-the savings from the expenses made or estimated in the fiscal year, to which the Organic Law of the Municipal regime authorizes the declaration of total or partial annulment, only of the budget allocations of programs, subprograms, projects, and consignations that would reflect the savings from the expenses; that is, consignations not used entirely or only partially used178; iv) “the Municipalities can approve additional allocations to cover the necessary costs not foreseen or insufficient budget allocations, by way of the declaration of non-subsistence or annulment of a budget consignation in order to direct it to the consignation that corresponds to those expenses […]. [S]aid annulment is not appropriate for those consignations aimed at complying, based on a legal mandate, with a specific purpose,” 179 such as that of the 10%; v) the Mayor’s Office of the Municipality of Chacao was to transfer the amount for [f]ive [t]housand [f]ive [h]undred and [f]ortyfive [m]illion Bolivares (Bs. 5,545,000,000.00) […] to the Metropolitan District of Caracas, during the 2001 fiscal year pursuant to that foreseen in the law. Notwithstanding, the highest authority of the Municipality declared the partial annulment of the budget allocations assigned to Consignment No. 4.07.02.02.04 denominated ‘Transfer of Capital to Federal Entities,’ for the total amount of [t]wo [t]housand [s]even [h]undred and [f]orty-three [m]illion, [f]our hundred and sixty-four thousand and forty one Bolivares and fifty-seven cents (Bs. 2,743,464,041.57), […], by way of Resolution No. 148-02 of October 25, 2002,”180 and vi) “of the reading of the actions raised in the sessions Nos. 0-73,0-74, EXT.13 and 0-80 of October 31, November 5, 15, and 26, 2002, respectively, it is noted that the Municipal Council of Chacao approved the additional allocations with the funds stemming from the consignation whose annulment was declared by the Mayor of the stated Municipality,” 181 thereby employing the public funds for purposes distinct from those established in the Law. 88. On April 5 and 18, 2005, the Comptroller General forwarded the actions undertaken in the case of the Municipality of Chacao to the Public Prosecutor’s Office182 in order for the corresponding criminal investigation to be carried out, since the respective administrative offenses could be related to some criminal offenses.183 177 Judgment No. 912 of August 6, 2008, of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, supra note 111, folio 519. 178 Judgment No. 912 of August 6, 2008, of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, supra note 111, folio 521. 179 Judgment No. 912 of August 6, 2008, of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, supra note 111, folios 521 and 522. 180 Judgment No. 912 of August 6, 2008, of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, supra note 111, folio 522. 181 Judgment No. 912 of August 6, 2008, of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, supra note 111, folio 532. 182 Official letters Nros. 08-01-375 and 08-01-407 of the Comptroller General of the Republic of April 5 and April 18, 2005, (Case file on the merits, tome IV, annex C, folios 1675 to 1679). 183 The State reported several criminal codifications, enshrined in the Law against Corruption, which could be related to the administrative offenses of which Mr. López Mendoza was found liable, namely: "Article 54. The public official who, unduly, for perosnal benefit or purposes contrary to those stipulated in the laws, regulations, resolutions or orders of service, uses or allows another person to use public property or assets held by a public body or State entity whose administration, possession, or custody has been entrusted to him or her, shall be punished with imprisonment of six (6) months to four (4) years. Article 56. The public official who illegally gives income or funds under his or her charge for a different use other than that budgeted or targeted, even if for the 40