3.1 Regarding the judicial appeal for annulment of the administrative decicion against the State 3.1.1. Arguments of the parties 153. The Commission emphasized that the appeal for annulment filed by Mr. López Mendoza on October 4, 2005, in relation to the administrative action that declared his responsibility for the facts of PDVSA “at the time of presenting the arguments on the merits,” on July 2008, “had not been rendered.” According to the Commission, although “there is no express provision that indicates the period to decide on the admission of this remedy or on the final decision, the Inter-American bodies have understood that due diligence includes the obligation to undertake all necessary actions within a reasonable time.” It noted that “the State did not indicate that the appeal for annulment was particularly complex. There is no evidence that the [alleged] victim or his representative had done something that provoked an undue delay in the handling of the proceeding.” Finally, for the Commission, “the State also [did] not show that the processing requirements justified the delay in the proceeding.” In this regard, the Commission concluded that "[i]t is evident that an action that has not been resolved three years from the date it was filed is not effective, which leads to helplessness to the detriment of petitioner.” “[N]otwithstanding that there was a ruling on this remedy in April 2009, the criteria that led the Commission to conclude that there was an infringement regarding reasonable time stands because the State has not justified the length of the proceeding.” 154. Regarding the appeal for annulment filed by Mr. López Mendoza on August 4, 2005, before the Political-Administrative Chamber of the STJ given the facts regarding the Municipality of Chacao, the Commission highlighted that it was decided “three years after it was filed.” As such, it “noted that the State did not indicate, in a specific manner, the complexity involved in resolving the appeal […].” On the other hand, according to the Commission, “the State did not make reference to the conduct of the petitioner, and regarding the actions taken by the competent authorities, it only provided a list of actions of the STJ without providing a legal argument.” Specifically, regarding the State’s argument related to the joinder of July 13, 2006, by another person to the action, the Commission “considered that the delay of more than two years of such joinder and three years since it was filed to resolve the appeal for annulment, is excessive.” 155. Regarding the judicial appeal for annulment of the administrative decision against the State for the resolution of responsibility in the case of the donations of PDVSA, the representatives noted that the period of three (3) years, five (5) months and twentyeight (28) days to render a decision “was excessive, and therefore, not reasonable” mainly because “the matter at hand was not […] complex.” Moreover, for the representatives, “there also does not exist, in this judicial appeal for annulment of the administrative decision against the State, any circumstances that evince actions to delay or that are negligent on the part of the petitioner that are the cause of delays in the proceeding. Yet, nevertheless, the Tribunal took more [than] three (3) years to admit the petition for processing (10-04-2005 to 02-01-2006); and, more than one (1) year and six (6) months, since the case file was pending, that is, when it was declared as “Having Seen” until the corresponding final judgment was rendered. (10-03-2007 to 04-012009).” 62