constitutional right and request for suspension of effects.160 In said appeal, Mr. López Mendoza noted that: i) his right to defense was violated, because no specific accusation was made161; ii) "[f]alse assumption of fact for assuming that the declaration of annulment was a simulated action"162; iii) "false assumption of law and violation of the presumption of innocence [...] for assuming [...] the objective responsibility"163; iv) "false assumption of law for assuming that the authorization to spend contained in the budget of the Municipality of Chacao [...]was a committed or incurred credit line”164; v)"[f]alse assumption of law for assuming that in the budget modification [...] there had been any use of appropriations for purposes other than those intended, ”165 and vi)" violation of the principle of exhaustion of the administrative decisions.”166 Furthermore, by requesting a precautionary measure for protection of a constitutional right, they “required that "the Comptroller not apply [Article 105 of the LOCGRSNCF] during the annulment lawsuit.”167 85. On March 8, 2006, the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice issued a judgment168 noting that “upon charging the petitioners with the sanction of disqualification from holding public office, effectively, […] the precautionary measure for protection of a constitutional right lacked cause.” 169 In this way, it declared that it “ADMITTED, without detriment to any verification by the Substantiation Court of the Chamber, in what pertains to the lapse of the legal action, the judicial appeal for annulment of the administrative decision of the State being exercised.” It added that, “[being] that the definitive admission is appropriate, the Substantiation Court would order the continuation of the proceeding in conformity with that provided in section II of Article 21 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice.” Finally, it declared “the precautionary measure for protection of a constitutional right INADMISSABLE” as well as the ”measure for temporary suspension of Article 105” of the LOCGRSNCF. 170 160 Cf. Appeal for annulment of August 4, 2005, filed by Mr. López Mendoza (Case file of annexes to the application, tome III, folios 1560 to 1591). 161 Appeal for annulment of August 4, 2005, filed by Mr. López Mendoza, supra note 160, folio 1565. 162 Appeal for annulment of August 4, 2005, filed by Mr. López Mendoza, supra note 160, folio 1571. 163 Appeal for annulment of August 4, 2005, filed by Mr. López Mendoza, supra note 160, folio 1575. 164 Appeal for annulment of August 4, 2005, filed by Mr. López Mendoza, supra note 160, folio 1581. 165 Appeal for annulment of August 4, 2005, filed by Mr. López Mendoza, supra note 160, folio 1584. 166 Appeal for annulment of August 4, 2005, filed by Mr. López Mendoza, supra note 160, folio 1587. 167 Appeal for annulment of August 4, 2005, filed by Mr. López Mendoza, supra note 160, folio 1588. Moreover, on September 29, 2005, the Comptroller General of the Republic forwarded a brief to the President and other Magistrates of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice in regard tot he appeal filed by Mr. López Mendoza. In said official letter, the Comptroller noted that “for the imposition of the sanctions […] enshrined in [Article 105 of the LOCGRSNCF], there is a requirement that by way of a declaration of administrative responsibility, imposed by the […] Comptroller […], without necessity of a proceeding, such sanction extends as a consequence that assumes there was prior exhaustion of remedies of an administrative proceeding circumscribed within the standards that makeup the rules of dules process.” Official letter without number on September 29, 2005, of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Case file of annexes to the application, tome III, folios 1595 to 1606). 168 Cf. Judgment of March 8, 2006, of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, EXP. N° 2005-5124 (case file of annexes to the application, annex 21, Tome 1, folios 477 to 488). 169 Judgment of 8 de Marzo de 2006 of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, supra note 168, folio 485. 170 Judgment of 8 de Marzo de 2006 of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, supra note 168, folio 487. 38