1.1.2. Considerations of the Court 115. The Court notes that in the public hearing in this case, Mr. López Mendoza noted that “he never [was given] the opportunity to present [his] arguments.” According to the alleged victim, the administrative procedures “led to some fines,” without “following the corresponding steps that would allow for the possibility of being heard.”214 116. According to expert witness Soto Villasmil, “[i]n order to prevent or punish the crimes of an administrative nature,” the Venezuelan State has established that the relevant proceedings to determine responsibility are made up of a series of phases in which, from the onset, “assessments of the arguments are gathered as well as [the evidence brought forward] by the legitimate interested parties allegedly responsible [...] in order to contest the presumed actions being alleged.” This is brought forward in addition to the subsequent “remedies.” 215 117. The Tribunal has previously established that the right to defense should be exercised from the point in which a person is a possible perpetrator or participated in a criminal act, and it ends when the proceeding is final.216 To prevent a person from exercising his or her right of defense is to strengthen the investigative powers of the State at the expense of the fundamental human rights of the person being investigated. The right to defense requires the State to treat the individual at all times as a true subject of the proceeding, in the broadest sense of the concept, and not merely as a subject therein. 217 118. Thus, the Court notes that at the various phases of the administrative proceedings on responsibility, opportunities and hearings were offered to Mr. López Mendoza for the presentation of arguments and evidence. In fact, the alleged victim actively participated in the proceedings against him, 218 was provided legal notice of the initiation of these proceedings (supra paras. 48 and 70), had the opportunity to be represented by counsel, presented testimonial and documentary evidence (supra paras. 61, 75, and 86), filed appeals (supra paras. 56, 61, 73, 79, and 84), always obtaining responses to his requests.219 Thus, the Court finds that no violation of the right to the defense of Mr. 214 Statement of Mr. Leopoldo López Mendoza in the public hearing heldo in this case. 215 Report or expert witness Alejandro José Soto Villasmil, supra note 39. 216 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva V. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 29. See mutatis mutandis Case of Suárez Rosero V. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment November 6, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 71; Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá. Excepciones Preliminares, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 148, and Case of Bayarri V. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 105. 217 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva, supra note 216, para. 29. 218 For example, by way of a brief presented on July 27, 2006, by the representation of Mr. López Mendoza, evidence was alleged before the the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice. Brief of July 27, 2006, presented by Mr. López Mendoza, supra note 171, folios 1662 to 1665. 219 Así, la Corte toma note que the Office of Determination of Responsibility, en su auto decisorio en el Case of relacionado con los hechos de PDVSA, respondió a los alegatos de la defensa señalando que “[e]n relación con la reiterada denuncia sobre violación del derecho a la defensa en la fase de potestad investigativa […] advi[rtió] que no se puede considerar que hubo violación [de la] garantía constitucional de la defensa, en la fase correspondiente a la Potestad Investigativa, porque conforme a lo previsto en el artículo 77 de la Ley que rige [sus] actividades, esta fase tiene por objeto, realizar las actuaciones que sean necesarias a fin de verificar la ocurrencia de actos, hechos u omisiones contrarios a una disposición legal o sublegal, determinar el monto 50