measure for protection of a constitutional right that implied prior rulings249 and that given the declaration of responsibility for the facts of the Municipality of Chacao there was a request for joinder that merited a new ruling by the Political-Administrative Chamber.250 The Court considers that these aspects involved technical debates on matters regarding the budget and implementation of agreements, which allows one to infer the complexity of the matters to be resolved. ii. Procedural actions of the interested parties 164. In addition to that indicated by the State, in regard to the complexity of the case, it is not clear from the case file that Mr. López Mendoza had provoked an undue delay through his actions in the processing of the case. As a consequence, the Court understands that there was no delay provoked by the alleged victim. iii. Actions of the judicial authorities 165. The State limited itself to noting that the judicial body charged with resolving the matter acted diligently. (supra para. 157). Of the evidence in the case file, the Court finds that in the context of said appeals, the authorities analyzed and admitted the evidence put forward by Mr. López Mendoza251 and heard the respective oral reports. 252 On this matter, the Court highlights that while the representatives argued that “according to the Organic Law of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, the decision on the merits should approximately take 10 and a half months,” Article 19 of the Law does not establish a specific period in which said tribunal must resolve the appeals filed. 166. In fact, Article 19 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice only mentions the period for, inter alia: i) the Substantiation Court to decide on the admission or inadmissibility of the petition or appeal; ii) the interested party to appeal the resolution on inadmissibility; iii) the relation to the claim is initiated; iv) the parties present their reports orally; v) the second stage of the relation to the claim is developed; vi) the possible answer to the appeal; vii) the Supreme Tribunal of Justice or the Chambers resolve the appeals; viii) evidence to be provided; ix) the reports to be brought, and x) appeals of the facts to be filed. Also, said Article established that “[t]he instance ends by 249 Appeal for annulment of August 4, 2005, filed by Mr. López Mendoza, supra note 160, folios 1562 to 1591. 250 Brief presented by Mr. Antonio Jímenez, wherein he expressed “having interest in the appeal for annulment underway” of July 13, 2006 (Case file of annexes to the application, tome III, folios 1648 to 1655) and Decision of October 24, 2006, of the Political-Administrative Chamber (Case file of annexes to the application, tome III, folios 1683 to 1689). 251 Cf. Brief of July 27, 2006, presented by Mr. López Mendoza offering evidence before the Court of Substantiation of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, supra note 171, folios 1662 to 1665. See also Resolution of August 8, 2006, issued by the Substantiation Court of the PoliticalAdministrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, supra note 171, folios 1676 to 1677. See also, brief without date consigned by the defense of Mr. Leopoldo López Mendoza on May 23, 2006, supra note 100, folios 8053 to 8057. See also Resolution of June 21, 2006 of the Substantiation Court of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, supra note 101, folios 8059 to 8060. 252 Official letter without number, dated on March 29, 2007, of the Comptroller General of the Republic addressed to the President and other Magistrates of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (Case file of annexes to the application, annex 34, tome III, folios 1692 to 1715). See also, evidence of July 12, 2007, of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, supra note 102, folio 8081. 65