202. In this regard, the Court considers that the problems regarding uncertainty do not generate per se a violation of the Convention, namely, that the fact that a regulation grant some form of discretion is not inconsistent with the degree of forseeability that the regulation should bear, provided that the scope of discretion and the manner in which it should be exercised is indicated with sufficient clarity so as to provide adequate protection from arbitrary interference. 275 The Court finds that there are standards that the Comptroller General must follow in deciding to impose any of the three sanctions contained in Article 105 of the LOCGRSNCF (supra para. 33) and that there are parameters that limit the discretion granted by the regulation to the Comptroller. 203. Moreover, the parties presented arguments concerning the nonexistence of a regulation that establishes the period of time that the Comptroller has to impose additional sanctions, once the administrative responsibility of a public official has been declared and the appropriate fine imposed. However, the Court finds that the PoliticalAdministrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, taking into account the general regulation on the statute of limitations of the sanctioning administrative actions (established in the LOCGRSNCF), in jurisprudence subsequent to the facts of this case, has established a maximum period of five years for the sanction of disqualification to be adopted. That Chamber found that "due to the absence of an express period for the Comptroller General of the Republic to impose an additional sanction," "a general statute of limitations that is analogous should be applied.” 276 204. In this case, the imposition of the disqualification against Mr. López Mendoza for the facts relating to PDVSA occurred about five months after the declaration of administrative responsibility was final277 (supra para. 57 and 58), while the disqualification administrative law, what is prohibited is that the legislation establish what the doctrine has defined as blank criminal regulations; that is, those cases where the judicial norm allows that the Administration be who defines the administrative infraction or who enshrine the sanctions that may be imposed.” The Constitutional Chamber added that the doctrine has noted that “the rigourous and perfect description of the infraction is, under some exception, practically impossible. The detail of the definition has its limits. The maximum requirements only allow, in the mean time, for the regulatory paralysis or of the annulment, in a good part, of the sanctionatory provisions that exist or that were to be rendered.” Judgment N° 1.270 of August 12, 2008, of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, supra note 188, folio 1421 275 “A law which confers a discretion is not in itself inconsistent with the requirement of foreseeability, provided that the scope of the discretion and the manner of its exercise are indicated with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim of the measure in question, to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference”. ECHR, Case Olsson v. Sweden, Judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130. para. 61 y Case Gillow v. The United Kingdom, Judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109, para. 51. 276 Article 114 of the LOCGRSNCF establishes that “[t]he administrative sanctioning or recovery actions derived from this law, are prescribed for a period of 5 (years), unless in special Laws different periods are established. Said term will begin to run as of the date that the events, actions, or ommissions from which administrative responsibility took place, the imposition of fines or reparation; neverthless, when the infractor is a pubic official, the perspcription will begin to run as of the date of cessation of the charge for the period of the occurrence of the irregularity. […]” Judgment No. 01516 of October 20, 2009 (Exp. Nº 2005-5270) issued by the Accidental Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice and available at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/spa/Octubre/01516-211009-2009-2005-5270.hctml (last visited on September 1, 2011) and Judgment No. 00782 of July 27, 2010 (Exp. Nº 2008-0871) issued by the PoliticalAdministrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice and available at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/spa/Julio/00782-28710-2010-2008-0871.html (last visited on September 1, 2011). Cited in the brief of final arguments of the State, supra note 30, folio 1459. 277 On March 28, 2005, the Motion to reconsider was resolved that was resolved that set as final the declaration of administrative responsibility for the facts related to PDVSA and on August 24, 2005, of the Comptroller General of the Republic issued on Resolution N° 01-00-000206 that set the sanction for disqualification for 3 years, supra notas 88 and 90. 76