160. Likewise, the Court takes into account that regarding the resolutions that declared the sanction for disqualification of Mr. López Mendoza from holding public office for 3 to 6 years, the alleged victim filed a Motion to Reconsider on September 22 and November 15, 2005, respectively (supra paras. 59 and 82). On January 9, 2006, the Comptroller General declared the appeals unfounded (supra paras. 60 and 83), that is, 3 months and a half and almost 2 months after they were filed. Thus, on June 21, 2006, Mr. López Mendoza filed, before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, the corresponding appeal for annulment together with the request for precautionary measure for protection of a constitutional right (supra para. 89). Said remedies were declared ‘unfounded’ on August 6, 2008 (supra para. 90), namely, 1 year and 2 months after being filed. 161. The Court notes that the parties did not present arguments on the alleged violation of the reasonable period regarding the precautionary measure for protection of a constitutional right with a request for suspension of the effects filed by Mr. López Mendoza jointly with the judicial appeal for annulment of the administrative decision for the facts of the Mayor’s Office of Chacao, resolved 7 months after by the PoliticalAdministrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (supra paras. 84 and 85). Thus, the Tribunal noted that the parties have developed arguments on the alleged violation of the reasonable period only in what concerns the judicial appeal for annulment of the administrative decision filed by the alleged victim regarding the declarations of administrative responsibility issued by the Office of the Determination of Responsibility for the cases regarding the PDVSA and the Municipality of Chacao. 162. As established prior, the remedies for annulment filed by the alleged victim regarding the declarations of responsibility for the facts of PDVSA and of the Municipality of Chacao were decided after 3 years and 6 months and 3 years, respectively. In order to determine if this is a reasonable period to consider these remedies effective, the Court, pursuant to its jurisprudence, will consider: i) the complexity of the matter, ii) the procedural actions of the interested parties; iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities, 246 and iv) the harm generated in the legal situation of the person involved in the process. 247 In this sense, it corresponds to Venezuela to justify –with the standards mentioned- the reasons it has required the indicated time to handle the case. If it fails to demonstrate this, the Court has the broad power to render its own estimation in this respect. 248 i. Complexity 163. The State noted that said remedies implied irregular facts committed by public officials, and in the specific case regarding the facts of PDVSA, the analysis of the blood relationship in the first degree between those implicated and the analysis of the implementation of the agreement pertained to a judge. (supra paras. 40 to 43). Moreover, the State noted that one of the appeals was filed jointly with a precautionary 246 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo V. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 29 of 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 77; Case of Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community, supra note 22, para. 133, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brasil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010 Series C No. 219, para. 219. 247 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 155; Case of Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community, supra note 22, para. 133, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 246, para. 219. 248 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro V. Perú. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 156, and Case of Radilla Pacheco V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 244. 64