12. On April 1 and 2, 2011, the representatives, the State, and the Inter-American Commission, respectively, submitted their final written arguments. On April 5 and 8, 2011, the representatives and the State, respectively, submitted annexes to their final written arguments. By way of a note from the Secretariat of the Court on April 12, 2011, following instructions from the President of the Court, the parties were informed that they had a period until April 25, 2011, to refer specifically, if deemed appropriate, to the information and annexes submitted by the representatives and by the State, in response to the questions made by the Judges of the Court in the note of the Secretariat of March 8, 2011 (supra para. 11). It was specified that any other additional argument would not be considered by the Court. On April 25, 2011, the representatives, the Commission, and the State presented their comments. 13. On May 10, 2011, the representatives presented "comments" to the comments formulated by the State regarding the information and annexes submitted by the representatives and the Inter-American Commission as a response to the questions of the judges of the Tribunal found in the note of the Secretariat of March 8, 2011 (supra paras. 11 and 12). By means of the note of the Secretariat of the Court of May 25, 2011, it was made known that the cited "comments" of the representatives were not requested by this Court nor by its President. However, the Tribunal admits those observations, exclusively on the matters that could help to establish costs and expenses in this case. III JURISDICTION 14. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction, under the terms of Article 62(3) of the Convention, to hear this case, given that Venezuela has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 9, 1977, and recognized the Court's contentious jurisdiction on June 24, 1981. IV EVIDENCE 15. Based on that established in Articles 46 and 50 of the Court Rules of Procedure, as well as in its jurisprudence on evidence and its appraisal,13 the Court will examine and from holding public office? k) Essential procedural guarantees in the specific proceeding of declaration of disqualification from holding public office. l) What are the differences between the standard of suspension, dismissal and disqualification established in Article 105 of the LOCGRSNCF? m) Is there a norm that states that the Comptroller must await a declaration of responsibility be reaffirmed until the disqualification from holding public office is exercised? n) The Inter-American Convention against Corruption establishes the obligation to codify in the legal code acts of corruption. In this sense, indicate, what is the norm in the Venezuelan legal code that codifies this conduct of which Mr. López Mendoza is accused? In the case that this conduct is a crime, note, why was no criminal action carried out in the present case against Mr. López Mendoza? o) According to the facts of the present case, a fine for one million, two hundred and forty-three thousand two hundred bolivares (Bs. 1,243,200.00) was imposed on Mr. López Mendoza for the facts related to the company PDVSA. For the same facts, in the case file it is evident that he was disqualified for three years. Heading to the standards of proportionality of the punishment, does the State consider a fine imposed for one million, two hundred and forty-three thousand two hundred bolivares (Bs. 1,243,200.00) to be proportional, and at the same time, disqualification for 3 years? 13 Cf. Case of “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al) V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50; Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 224, para. 19, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón 9