8. The petitioner stated that, on August 4, 2000, he was elected Mayor of the Chacao Municipality, State of Miranda, by popular vote and that he was reelected as Mayor on October 31, 2004. He continues to occupy that office and will do so until November of this year when elections will be held and when he intends to run for Mayor of the State of Caracas. The petitioner added that as a result of two administrative sanctions imposed in 2004, he was barred from occupying any other public office or position for periods of 3 and 6 years, respectively, by the Comptroller General of the Republic, the administrative office charged with overseeing the management of public finances. 9. With regard to these administrative actions, the petitioner indicated that on October 21, 2004, the Directorate of Professional Responsibility of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, determined that, as National Analyst in the Office of the Chief Economist of Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), Venezuela’s state oil company, he had administrative responsibility for alleged irregularities during fiscal year 1998 and fined him. 10. The petitioner also indicated that on July 12, 2004, on a parallel track to the above mentioned action, the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic began investigating him about alleged budgetary changes in his office as Mayor of the Chacao Municipality during fiscal year 2002. The petitioner points out that during this investigation he was not allowed to refute the allegations or to argue and prove that he bore no responsibility. The petitioner added that, given the situation, on August 10, 2004, he filed an amparo petition arguing that he was not afforded due process of law, that his right to a defense had been violated and that he had not been allowed to participate in the most important phase of the administrative proceedings. According to the petitioner, the amparo petition was declared inadmissible on August 25, 2004. The petitioner points out that on October 24, 2004, based on the allegations investigated during this second proceeding, the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic again determined that he bore administrative responsibility and fined him a second time. 11. The petitioner then pointed out that one year after the determinations of responsibility, the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic issued resolutions on August 25 and on September 26, 2005, imposing the “accessory sanction” of barring him from occupying any public office or position for periods of 3 and 6 years respectively, based on the previous findings of administrative responsibility. 12. The petitioner indicated that these actions by the Comptroller General were based on Article 105 of the Organic Law of the same entity which stipulates: Under the provisions of Articles 91 and 92 of this law, the finding of administrative responsibility will be sanctioned with the fine established in article 94 depending on the seriousness of the offence and the amount of damages caused. It will be the exclusive responsibility of the Comptroller General of the Republic, and only of the Comptroller General, without any other proceeding required, and depending on the seriousness of the crime committed, to suspend the responsible individual from his position without pay for a period no longer than twenty-four (24) months or to remove that individual from office, with the highest authority being responsible for executing the action; and, depending on the gravity of the offence, to bar the individual from occupying any public office or position for up to a maximum of fifteen (15) years, in which case the Comptroller General must forward all pertinent information to the Human Resources office of the entity or agency where the events took place in order that it may follow the appropriate course of action. 13. With regard to exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioner pointed out that he filed administrative petitions for reconsideration of the two actions that determined his administrative responsibility which were resolved by the Comptroller General on March 28, 2005, in the sense that it ratified the finding of administrative responsibility leading the petitioner to file petitions to nullify the actions and precautionary amparo petitions with the Politico Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court (hereinafter “the Politico Administrative 2