this Resolution, is there any mention of the reasons of fact or law regarding why the Comptroller General […] considered the punishable act of sufficient severity to apply the sanction of disqualification, and that the lack of cause is even more so evident because the Resolution ignored the requirement of demonstrating the detriment caused.” 156 83. On January 9, 2006, the Comptroller issued a resolution dismissing the Motion to Reconsider.157 According to the Comptroller, “the factual basis of the contested Resolution, is based on the citation made in said decision, of the specifics in which the declaration of administrative responsibility is based, and which provide the grounds for the considerations made by the Comptroller [in] order to determine the severity of the irregular activity, as required by Article 105” of the LOCGRSNCF.158 In regard to the foundations of law, the Comptroller noted that “in the mentioned Resolution, it expressly indicated the circumstances of law that motivated the decision, by indicating the regulation that establishes the alleged sanction imposed. That is, the cited Article.”159 4.9. Judicial appeal for annulment of the administrative decision of the State [recurso contencioso administrative de nulidad] with the precautionary measure for protection of a constitutional right [medida de amparo cautelar] and suspension of effects 84. On August 4, 2005, Mr. López Mendoza filed, before the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, a judicial appeal for annulment of the administrative decision together with the precautionary measure for protection of a 155 Resolution N° 01-00-00005 of January 9, 2006, of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 16, folio 420). 156 Resolution N° 01-00-00005 of January 9, 2006, of the Comptroller General of the Republic supra note 155, folio 422. 157 Cfr Resolution N° 01-00-00005 of January 9, 2006 issued by the Office of the Comptroller, supra note 155, folios 419 to 432. 158 Moreover, it was noted that “the questioned administrative act contains foundations or motives that served as a basis to dictate the decision, each time that the act alluded to, as has been established, supra, that the sanction for disqualification was imposed […], in an exclusive and excluding manner and without other proceedings distinct from the one on determination of responsibility, on the basis of discretional power, according to the gravity of the infraction, that is, said sanction is a legal consequence that, pursuant to the Law stems from the declaration of responsibility of Mr. López Mendoza”[...a]dding that it is in the power of discretion of the Comptroller […] and in the light of the documentation provided by the Office of Determination of Responsibility of the Comptroller Body, there was by the authority, a ponderation of the irregular activities for which the administrative responsibility was declared, which implies the excercise of power of analysis, evaluation, and apreciation of the merit of circumstances (of law and fact, positive and negative) noted in the background of the case, and the magnitud of the conduct assumed by the petitioner in his role as Mayor of the Municipality of Chacao […].Resolution N° 01-00-00005 of January 9, 2006, of the Comptroller General of the Republic, supra note 155, folios 429 and 430. 159 Resolution N° 01-00-00005 of January 9, 2006, of the Comptroller General of the Republic, supra note 155, folio 429. On the other hand, in an official letter of January 11, 2006, the resolution was notified to Mr. López Mendoza. In that official letter, it was stated that "contrary to Resolution No. 01-00-000005 [...], the relevant appeal for annulment could be brought [...] before the Supreme Court of Justice, in the span of six (6 ) months as of the date of [the] notification in accordance with paragraph 20 of Article 21 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice." Cf. Official letter No. 08-01-24 of January 11, 2006, of the Office of Determination of Responsibility (Case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 19, folios 448 and 449). 37