López Mendoza regarding administrative and judicial authorities that rendered decisions regarding fines in his case. 119. Furthermore, given the questioning of the alleged victim regarding the lack of specification regarding the charges filed against him, the Court notes that the evidence in the record allows one to understand that from the initial phase of investigation there was clarity regarding the type of material irregularities regarding the investigation concerning Mr. López Mendoza. Thus, from an initial point, he was notified that the Comptroller was to conduct "an investigation into the contributions made by [...] PDVSA, regarding grants and donations during the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001" (supra para. 48) and that the Director of Municipal Oversight requested "a detailed report on the use of resources destined for the Metropolitan Mayor’s Office of Caracas” in the fiscal 2002 year (supra para. 70).220 The Court noted that, notwithstanding the declaration of the alleged victim in the sense that "there was never any sign of damage to the public good,"221 he submitted respective discharge briefs and evidence after the respective notifications (supra para. 49, and 70), making it possible to conclude that Mr. López Mendoza, reasonably, was clear on the facts of investigation that could possibly be used against him. 120. Furthermore, the Court considers that it is not per se contrary to the American Convention that it be established in domestic law of the States that in certain proceedings, certain procedural actions not be subject to objections. Additionally, the Court notes that the representatives did not present sufficient argumentation on the adverse impact that this impossibility to contest the proceeding might have had on Mr. López Mendoza’s right to defense. 222 The evidence in the record allows for the conclusion de los daños causados al patrimonio público, si fuere el caso, así como la procedencia de acciones fiscales, todo lo cual evidencia, que en esta fase, el órgano de control aun no ha formado criterio respecto al carácter presuntamente irregular del hecho investigado y de las consecuencias que de él pudieran derivarse, porque sólo, en esa fase, se tiene certeza respecto al hallazgo encontrado durante la auditoría sin que de ella pueda, en esta fase investigativa, determinar las posibles acciones fiscales que eventualmente y previa conclusión de esta fase, se pudieran derivar”. Auto decisorio de 29 de Octubre de 2004 de the Office of Determination of Responsibility, supra note 85, folio 187. 220 En el Report on results of the Office of Industry Oversight se señaló que “[r]esulta incierto que en el Order to proceed ofl 8 de septiembre de 2003, no se hayan mencionado los fundamentos de hecho y de derecho por los cuales se inició la investigación, es decir, esta Dirección de Control cumplió con el ejercicio de la potestad investigativa, en los términos a que se contraen los artículos 77 y siguientes de la LOCGRSNCF. Particularmente, fueron claramente narrados los hechos, actos u omisiones detectados en la actuación de control practicada, así como las normas de orden que presuntamente resultaron inobservadas con las referidas conductas”. Report on results of the Office of Industry Oversight, supra note 74, folio 7380. De otra parte, the Office of Determination of Responsibility señaló que “mal podría alegarse que no se precisó la imputación a los fines de ejercer una correcta defensa, ya que en la fase correspondiente a la Potestad Investigativa, sólo se señalan los hechos o hallazgos obtenidos de la actuación de control fiscal, sin que esté dado, subsumir esos hechos o hallazgos de auditoría en alguno de los supuestos generadores de responsabilidad administrativa contemplado[s] en el artículo 91 de la [LOCGRSNCF], o en cualquier otro supuesto generador de esa responsabilidad que esté contemplado en otro instrumento legal”. Auto decisorio de 29 de Octubre de 2004 de the Office of Determination of Responsibility, supra note 85, folio 188. 221 Statement of Mr. Leopoldo López Mendoza, supra note 214. 222 For example, the Court expressed in regard to the act of initiation rendered by the Office of Determination of Responsibility “that it does not produce a failure of defense, since from its content one can deduce with clarity the facts being charged, who has been urged by the investigative body to present evidence and defend at the public hearing to refute the facts and allegations made. Consequently, for this Court a lack of defense does not exist, notwithstanding that given the inability to promote evidence, have access to the case file, not setting the public hearing, failure to provide notice of any act of investigation or the denial of admission to an administrative proceeding, the extraordinary protection of constitutional right could still proceed.” Decision of August 25, 2004, of the Seventh Superior Court of the Administrative Disputes, supra note 132, folios 344 to 353. 51