156. The representatives indicated, in regard to the appeal for annulment filed for the facts related to the Municipality of Chacao, that “it is obvious that this is a non-complex matter. Analyzing [a] municipal resolution did not require more than a determination on whether the elements of subjectivity, objectivity, were satisfied for its rendering as well as their necessity.” On the other hand, for the representatives, “there does not exist […] a single circumstance that evinces delays or negligence by the plaintiff and that are the cause of delays in the proceeding. Nevertheless, the Court took: more than seven (7) months to admit the petition for processing (08-04-2005 to 03-08-2006); and, more than one (1) year and two (2) months, since the case file was pending, that is, since it was declared as “Having Seen,” (that is, the substantiation finalized) until it rendered the corresponding final judgment (05-25-2007 to 08-06-2008). In addition, the representatives noted that “for this moment, the first sanction of disqualification had been effectuated […] rendered by the Comptroller […], [to which] there was sufficient evidence of the threat that implied the duration of the administrative act of administrative responsibility, which generated, sufficient arguments for the suspension of [Mr. López Mendoza] or for the non-application of Article 105 of the LOCGR[SNCF].” 157. For its part, the State indicated, in what pertains to the judicial appeal for annulment of the administrative decision regarding the responsibility for the facts of PDVSA, dealing “with a very complex remedy given the irregularities committed by two public officials […], by a judge […], given that between these two officials there exists a first-grade blood relationship.” Moreover, according to the State, in the “processing of the appeal in question there was much procedural activity by the interested parties and diligence by the judicial body.” 158. Moreover, the State mentioned that the alleged delay in the decision regarding the appeal filed by Mr. López Mendoza for the facts regarding the Municipality of Chacao, “stem[med from the fact that the appeal] was not only filed jointly with the precautionary measure for protection of a constitutional right, which implied as well, a prior ruling, but rather there was also a request for joinder formulated on July 13, 2006, by [a person], as legal representative [of] Council […], who requested precautionary measures, which merited a new proceeding by the Chamber, which was not assessed by the [InterAmerican] Commission, who did not take into consideration the procedural activity in the case, which was never at a standstill but rather in continuous movement.” 3.1.2 Considerations of the Court 159. The Court notes that regarding the resolutions that declared the administrative responsibility of Mr. López Mendoza for the facts of the PDVSA and the Municipality of Chacao, he filed the respective Motion to Reconsider on November 22, 2004 (supra paras. 56 and 79). Said remedies were declared ‘unfounded by the Director of the Office of the Determination of Responsibility of the General Office of Special Procedures on March 28, 2005, that is, 4 months after it was filed (supra paras. 57 and 80). Thus, Mr. López Mendoza filed a judicial appeal for annulment of the administrative decision of the State before the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice on October 4 and August 5, 2005, respectively (supra paras. 61 and 84). On March 31, 2009, and on August 5, 2008, respectively, the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice declared the mentioned appeals for annulment unfounded (supra paras. 63, and 87), that is, after 3 years and 6 months in the first case and 3 years in the second. 63