46 166. The State held that “the appeal for annulment and the amparo do not consider a conclusive time period; therefore, its efficacy must be assessed taking into account all the effects resulting from the continuous chain of disqualifications.” 167. The Organic Law on the Protection of Constitutional Rights and Guarantees sets forth that: […] Whenever the amparo action is exercised against administrative measures having specific consequences or denials or abstentions by the Administration, such action can be brought before the competent Administrative Court of that jurisdiction, if any, together with the administrative appeal for annulment or against omissions, respectively, as applicable. In these cases, the Court will shortly, summarily, effectively and in accordance with the provisions of Section 22, if appropriate for the purposes of constitutional protection, suspend the effects of the act appealed in order to guarantee the constitutional right that has been violated during proceedings. […] Whenever the amparo action is exercised against administrative acts together with the administrative appeal on the grounds of a constitutional right violation, the appeal may be filed at any time, even after expiration of the time periods set forth by law and it will not be necessary to completely exhaust the administrative stage.185 168. In accordance with these provisions, the CPAM has considered that “the treatment given to the amparo action exercised together with the petition for nullification of administrative acts must be reviewed”186 and agreed “to provide similar treatment to that applied in the case of other precautionary measures; therefore, once the main claim is admitted by the Chamber […] the appealed precautionary measure should be solved forthwith.”187 The difference between the amparo and other precautionary measures is that the former “exclusively refers to violations of constitutionally protected rights and guarantees; therefore, given the relevance of any such violation, the need for a prompt decision regarding the requested measures is greater.”188 169. The Court confirms that under Venezuelan domestic law, the precautionary nature of the amparo filed together with the appeal for annulment calls for temporary -though immediate- protection, given the nature of the harm caused. These circumstances allow for restoration of the affected legal situation to its status prior to the occurrence of the alleged violation, while a final decision is rendered in the main judicial proceeding. 170. Based on the considerations above, the Court must carry out an analysis establishing a difference between the duration of the amparo and the duration of the appeal for annulment since -though exercised together- they pursue different goals. Thus, the Court considers that the amparo should be a “simple and prompt recourse,” pursuant to the terms of Article 25(1) of the Convention,189 while the 185 Cf. article 5 of the Organic Law on the Protection of Constitutional Rights and Guarantees. 186 Cf. judgment No. 535 of April 18, 2007, rendered by the ad-hoc CPAM, supra note 184, p. 3841. 187 Cf. judgment No. 535 of April 18, 2007, rendered by the ad-hoc CPAM, supra note 184, pp. 3842 and 3843. 188 189 Cf. judgment No. 535 of April 18, 2007, rendered by the ad-hoc CPAM, supra note 184, p. 3841. In this sense, the Human Rights Committee indicated as follows: “the right to an effective remedy may in certain circumstances require States Parties to provide for and implement provisional or interim measures to avoid continuing violations and to endeavour to repair at the earliest possible opportunity any harm that may have been caused by such violations.” Cf. United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, March 29, 2004, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, par. 19.