5. Appeal for annulment together with the request for precautionary measure for protection of a constitutional right 89. On June 21, 2006, Mr. López Mendoza filed, before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, appeal for annulment together with the request for precautionary measure for protection of a constitutional right, arguing the unconstitutionality of Article 105 of the LOCGRSNCF. 184 90. On August 6, 2008, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice declared the appeal by way of judgment No. 1.266 UNFOUNDED. 185 In this judgment a recount of the historical background of Article 105 of the LOCGRSNCF was provided, and an analysis was carried out of the compatibility of this regulation with Articles 42186 and 65187 of the Venezuelan Constitution and subsequently, responses were provided to each one of the arguments of unconstitutionality made regarding the possible violation of the right to defense, the principle of criminal codification, the principle of proportionality, and political rights. 188 public interest, shall be punished with imprisonment for three months to three years, depending on the severity of the crime." Brief of final arguments of the State, supra note 30, folio 1606. 184 Constitutionality challenge of June 21, 2006, filed by Mr. López Mendoza (Case files of annexes to the answer to the application, tome XXIII, annex C, folios 8379 and 8408). 185 Judgment No. 1266 of August 6, 2008 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice supra note 31, folios 584 to 642. 186 The Constitutional Chamber noted that “[h]eeding to the content of [Articles 42 and 65 of the Constitution] it is necessary to note that the sanctioning authority of the Comptroller General of the Republic is of the administrative level; that is, it is not a political sanction [...] given that the sanction of disqualification refers to the administrative functions [...]. This disqualification applies to all administrative functions, including those that stem from popularly elected positions, given that the role of the government necesisarily involves the means to excercise public positions. […]It is noted that the criminal sentence alluded to in Articles 42 and 65 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela suspends the exercise of political rights, and that imposed in exchange by the Comptroller General of the Republic disqualifies from the exercise of public functions, [...] and as a result of the disqualification, it restricts the ability to be a public official, as would be the case with the restriction based on majority or of foreigners to hold public office, emphasizing that any public official, even those elected by popular choice, in that the individual being sanctioned can not be an official, and thereby can not be in government. Based on this distinction, and understanding that they are two different disqualifications arising from various constitutional provisions, Articles 42, 65 and 289(3), it corresponds to the organs of public administration not to allow the sanctioned citizens to take on public positions, that is, not to appoint them or allow their candidacy.” Judgment No. 1266 of August 6, 2008 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice supra note 31, folios. 635 to 637. 187 In a similar vein, the Constitutional Court in Judgment No. 1265 stated that "Article 65 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela [...] does not exclude the possibility that such disqualification can be established either by an administrative body in the strict sense or a body with functional autonomy, as in this case, the Comptroller General of the Republic. Note that the regulation, while it states that the prohibition from running for public office arises from a conviction for committing a crime, it does not prevent that such a prohibition may have a different origin; the regulation only raises a hypothesis, does not deny other comparable circumstances.” Judgment No. 1265 of August 5, 2008, of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice. Answer to the application brief (Case file on the merits, tome I, folio 301) availale at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/scon/Agosto/1265-050808-05-1853.htm (last visited on September 1, 2011). 188 Under this line of thinking, the Constitutional Chamber referred to the compatibility of Article 105 of the LOCGRSNCF with Article 23 of the American Convention in Judgment No. 1.270, upon noting that “the additional sanction that contemplated Article 105 of the [LOCGRSNCF], and imposed by the Comptroller General of the Republic, does not involve political disqualification that restricts the excercise of the citizens or political rights, but rather said power foreseen in the law of fiscal oversight which consists in a legal limitation –not 41