3.4. Motion to Reconsider 56. On November 22, 2004, Mr. López Mendoza filed a motion to reconsider,87 arguing irregularities in the accusation as well as the irregular denial of certain evidence. 57. On March 28, 2005, the Director of the Office of the Determination of Responsibility of the General Office of Special Procedures dismissed the motion to reconsider and confirmed the October 2004 decision. 88 The administrative body determined that for the declaration of administrative responsibility, a proceeding took place in accordance with the applicable normative law, and that there was a correct evaluation of the facts and of the body of evidence and of the causal relationship between these and the actions of the petitioner. 89 3.5. Imposition of the sanction of disqualification 58. On August 24, 2005, the Comptroller General issued Resolution No. 01-0000020690 as a result of the final decision in the administrative forum of the declaration of administrative responsibility which occurred on March 28 of that year, imposing on Mr. López Mendoza the sanction of disqualification from holding public office for a period of three (3) years in accordance with Article 122 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic of 1995-in effect at the time the events occurred,- and Article 105 of the LOCGRSNCF.91 3.6. Motion to Reconsider 59. On September 22, 2005, Mr. López Mendoza filed a motion to reconsider92 against the order imposing his disqualification for 3 (three) years, arguing “the manifest lack of cause or motivation for the action taken, thereby violating the right to defense and 87 In this regard, he indicated that in the official letters No. 06-02-776 and 06-02-7809, both of September 12, 2003, “there is no specific or clear accusation against Antonieta Mendoza de López and Leopoldo López Mendoza […]. There is simply the free narration of facts pertaining to various people, from which no charge is clearly and specifically laid out for such people, nor with indication of any of the alleged law from which the complaint stems. “Also violated was the right to defense [...] in the same way that, in an illegal manner, the use of the evidence was denied, put forward by the representation [...]. The same [would have happened], regarding the testimonial evidence promoted in due course and that was never gathered because of the obstacles imposed by this Body, from which it could be inferred that it has no interest in the truth [...] coming to light on this issue." Motion for reconsideration filed on November 22, 2004 by Mr. Leopoldo López Mendoza with the Director of accountability of the General Office of Special Procedures of the Comptroller General of the Republic (case file of annexes to the application, tome V, appendix 3, folios 2620 to 2651 ). 88 Cf. Resolution of the Office of Determination of Responsibility of March 28, 2005 (Case file of annexes to the application, annex 4, folios 218 to 248). 89 Cf. Resolution of the Office of Determination of Responsibility of March 28, 2005, supra note 88, folios 218 to 248. 90 Cf. Resolution N° 01-00-000206 of August 24, 2005 issued by of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 14, folios 396 to 400). 91 On September 1, 2005, through Official Letter No. 08-01-881 of August 30, 2005, Mr. López Mendoza was notified of the resolution. Cf. Official letter No. 08-01-881 on August 30, 2005 issued by the General Office of Special Procedures of the Comptroller General's Office (Case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 13, folios 388 and 389). 92 Cf. Motion to reconsider of September 22, 2005 filed by Mr. Leopoldo López Mendoza (Case file of annexes to the application, tome IV, apéndice 3, folios 2728 to 2737). 26