63. On March 31, 2009, the Judgment No. 426 was rendered by the PoliticalAdministrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, dismissing the judicial appeal for annulment, and as a consequence, reaffirming the decision that declared the administrative responsibility of Mr. López Mendoza.104 In this regard, in the judgment, the Political-Administrative Chamber addressed the following controversies: i) compliance of the right to defense in the investigation and determination of responsibility phases; ii) “false assumption of law,” since it was argued that the facts could not be subsumed under the “legal codification of agreement of interested parties in order to obtain a result,” to which a response was given of a detailed description of the facts that proved the classification of the charge,105 as well as reaffirming that “said agreement […] had nothing to do with the fate of the resources obtained [since] the classification [does not imply] a necessary economic privilege;”106 iii) “false assumption of law” for the use of the element of “third party,” to which the response was that “even though in the file there was no evidence of [Mr.] López Mendoza’s specific and formal action in the granting of donations[, it is possible] to conclude that the Civil Association Primero Justicia served as a third party for him in order to obtain the purpose that involved him, that is, that he was expressly interested in forming part of its Board of Directors; which denotes an action contrary to the obligations imposed on him as an employee of […] PDVSA, S.A.” 107; iv) the denial to examine the evidence of witnesses and reports put forward in the administrative proceeding, and iv) the application of pecuniary sanctions.108 64. On December 2, 2004, the Comptroller General forwarded the actions in the PDVSA to the Public Prosecutor’s Office109 for the corresponding criminal investigation to take place, given that the administrative offenses could be related to criminal offenses.110 104 Cf. Judgment of March 31, 2009, issued by the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (Case file of annexes to the brief of pleadings and motions, annex H, Tome x, folios 5322 al 5358). 105 Cf. Judgment of March 31, 2009, issued by the the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, supra note 104, folios 5346 to 5348. 106 Judgment of March 31, 2009, issued by the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, supra note 104, folio 5351. 107 Judgment of March 31, 2009, issued by the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, supra note 104, folio 5351. 108 “As a consequence, this Chamber deems that the Fiscal Oversight body, on imposing the sanction of a fine to the citizens Antonieta Mendoza de López and Leopoldo López Mendoza, considering their role as public officials and the noncompliance of the laws leading to the infractions for which they are accused. For these reasons, the argument must be rejected regarding the legal represention of plaintiffs on the unconstitutionality of that standard.” Judgment of March 31, 2009, issued by the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (case file of annexes to the brief of pleadings and arguments, annex H, Tome h, folio 5356). 109 Cf. Official letter N° 01-00-000772 of December 2, 2004 (Case file on the merits, tome IV, annex C, folios 1665 to 1673). 110 The State reported of various criminal codifications, enshrined in the Law against Corruption, that could be related to the unlawful administrative acts of which Mr. López Mendoza was declared responsible: Article 70: “The public official that, upon intervening for reasons that involve his position in the handling of a contract or other operation, involves him or herself with the interested parties or intermediares in order to obtain a particular result, or uses an particular ploy or device to obtain this result, will be punished with prision for two (2) to five (5) years. If the crime’s objective was to obtain undue money, gifts or monetary gains that were offered or given to him or her or to a third party, shall be punished with two (2) to six (6) years and fines up to one hundred percent of the benefit given or promised. The same punishment applies to those who acts in concert with the officials, and who promises or gives the undue money, gains, or gifts referred to in this Article.” Article 72: “The person defined in the codified cases, the public official or person who on their own behalf of by way of another person illegly seeks a use from an act of public administration, shall be punished with one (1) to 29