making the order null.” In this regard, he noted that nowhere in the Resolution is there reference to the reasons of fact or law upon which the Comptroller General of the Republic considered the punishable actions of sufficient severity to apply the sanction of disqualification. Similarly, he argued that cause is not given regarding the reason why the sanction for disqualification is applied for a period of three (3) years, which is the maximum term permitted by Law, and that the requirement was ignored of demonstrating the detriment caused. The latter is required by Article 122 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic of 1995, applicable rationae temporis. 93 60. On January 9, 2006, the Comptroller General's Office issued Resolution No. 01-0000004 which dismissed the motion to reconsider. 94 According to the resolution, Article 105 of the LOCGRSNCF, in accordance with that established in Article 122 of the derogated Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic of 1995, stated that "it is clear that the imposition of sanctions, which set as unique and exclusive requirements: a) the declaration of administrative responsibility of the entity or person investigated, and b) that this become the final decision in the administrative forum. In this regard, such sanctions are legal consequences that pursuant to the Law, arise from the declaration of responsibility, once it becomes a final decision in the administrative forum.” 95 3.7. Judicial appeal for annulment of the administrative decision of the State [Recurso contencioso administrative de nulidad] 61. On October 4, 2005, Mr. López Mendoza, before the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, filed a judicial appeal for annulment of the administrative decision of the State regarding the Resolution of March 28, 2005, 96 which established as final the declaration of responsibility. In the appeal, he argued: i) that the proceeding was flawed since he was not provided with a clear, specific, and precise charge regarding the actions for which he was being accused, given that only a “vague narration of the facts” was provided without noting the specific law upon which the 93 Cf. Motion to reconsider of September 22, 2005 filed by Mr. Leopoldo López Mendoza, supra note 92, folios 2728 to 2737. 94 Cf. Resolution N° 01-00-00004 of January 9, 2006, issued by the Comptroller General of the Republic (Case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 16, folios 407 to 417). 95 In the same sense, the Resolution indicatd that: “applying that provided in the case under analysis, one can assess that the administrative has the foundations or cause that was the basis for the decision rendered, each time that in the act it is noted[…], that the sanctions established in Article 105 of the [LOCGRSNCF], related to Article 122 of the derogatd Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic.” “Adding to this, it is held that within the orbit of discretion conferred to the Comptroller General of the Republic and in light of the documentation provided by the Office for the Determination of Responsibility of the Oversight body, there was a ponderation made by the entity of the severity of the irregularities upon which administrative responsibility was declared against the petitioner, which obviously, implied the excercise of an analysis of power, evaluation, and appreciation of the merits of the circumstances (of fact and of law, positive and negative) indicated in the background of the case, and in the magnitud of the conduct assumed to have been carried out by the petitioner in his position as Analyst of ENTORNO NACIONAL [National Environment] in the Office of the Chief Economist of the PDVSA” Moreover, it was indicated that “given Resolution N° 01-00-000004 de 9 de January de 2006 emitida por of the Comptroller General of the Republic, supra note 94, folios 412, 415 y 416. By way of Official letter No. 08-01-21 of January 11, 2006, said resolution was notified to Mr. López Mendoza. Cf. Official letter No. 08-01-21 of January 11, 2006 (case file of annexes to the application, annex 18, Tome I, folios 433 to 446). 96 Cf. Judicial appeal for annulment of the administrative decision of October 4, 2005, presented by Mr. Leopoldo López Mendoza (Case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 20, folios 451 to 475). This appeal was filed under Case file N° 2005-5251 and was admitted on February 1, de 2006. 27