86. On July 27, 2006, Mr. López Mendoza provided evidence171 and on March 29, 2007, the act for oral reports was carried out.172 87. On August 5, 2008, the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, by way of Judgment No. 912, declared the appeal unfounded.173 Regarding the facts of the Municipality of Chacao, the Political-Administrative Chamber established the following as legal grounds to dismiss the appeal for annulment174 given his accusation of a simulated legal transaction:175 i) “[Article 22 of the Special Law of the Regime of the Metropolitan District] establishes “as part of the revenues of the Metropolitan District, ten percent (10%) of the individual revenues of the Municipalities that make up the District that were collected in the immediately preceding fiscal year. Thus, the Municipalities that make up the Metropolitan District- one of which is the Municipality of Chacao–can only provide ninety percent (90%) of its own revenues” 176; ii) “the contribution of ten percent (10%) of the individual revenues of the Municipalities that make up the Metropolitan District of Caracas, […], constitute one of the revenues established by law in favor of that District to exercise its jurisdiction” and as such “is a monetary obligation […], regarding the individual revenues, and compliance must be demanded by way of an autonomous 171 The evidence submitted was: i) “Supporting evidence of the processing of the nonsubsistence and additional allocations refered to in the Resolution.” ii) “Supporteres of the situation of the Municipal Treasury of the Mayor’s Office of Chacao corresponding to the 2002 year, […], which contained a series of documents of 45 pages, from the Municipal Treasurey, of the Office of Planification and Budget of the Office of Tributary Administration of the Mayor’s office of Chacao”. iii) “Certified Copy of the Sessions Acts of the Ordinary Chamber, No. 0-80, held on November 26, 2002, wherein, in reference to the additional allocations Nos. 45, 46, 47, the council […] explressly, requested evidence of the favorable vote due to the communication of the Municipal Comptroller dated November 18, 2002, read at the same session, ‘where it is concluded that the declaration of nonsubsistence ordered by the Mayor is within the law.” Iv) “[C]opy certified of the communication No. CMDC/GLI776 dated 18/11/2002, containing the report of the Municipal Comptroller of Chacao, […], evidence of the opinion of said body on the legality of the declaration of nonsubsistene contained in Resolution 148-02 of the Mayor’s Office of Chacao”. v) “[C]opy of the judgment of that PoliticalAdministrative Chamber distinguished by numbers 5192 of July 27, 2005, and 968 of April 20, 2006, and of the copies of the transactions that arrived at the Mayor’s Office of the Municipality of Liberator and the Municipality of Baruta with the Mayor’s Office of the Metropolitan District of Caracos, unified by those judgments.” Brief of July 27, 2006 filed by Mr. López Mendoza (Case file of annexes to the application, tome III, folios 1662 to 1665). On August 8, 2006, the Court of Substantiation of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice admitted the documents presented by Mr. López Mendoza. Cf. Resolution of August 8, 2006, issued by the Court or Substantiation of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (case file of annexes to the application, Tome III, folios 1678 to 1679). 172 Official letter without number of date March 27, 2007, issued by the Comptroller General of the Republic (case file of annexes to the application, Tome II, folios 1692 to 1715). 173 Judgment No. 912 of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice of August 6, 2008 (EXP. No. 2005-5124) (case file of annexes to the application, annex 23, Tome I, folios 502 to 535). 174 Judgment No. 912 of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice on August 6, 2008 supra note 111, folios 502 a 535. 175 Numeral 21 of Article 91 of the LOCGRSNCF established that “[n]otwithstanding the detriment to the civil or criminal responsibility, and of what is provided in other laws, those acts, events, or ommissions considerd to generate administrative responsibility are: (... omissis .. .) 21. the simulated or fraudulent actions in the administration or carrying out of actions by entities and bodies in the numeral 1 to 11 of Article 9 of this Law...”. Article 91 of the Organic Law of the General Comptroller of the Republic and the National System of Fiscal Oversight, supra note 29, folio 78. 176 Judgment No. 912 of August 6, 2008, of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, supra note 111, folio 517. 39