order of June 12, 2006, sent by the Comptroller General of the Republic to the President Chancellor of the National electoral council (CNE) where there is a list of 54 persons who also had sanctions of disqualification or dismissal imposed on them. 268 194. The Court understands that the 118 people in the first list and the 54 of the second list were under the sanction of disqualification from public office. However, the Court has no jurisdiction to decide whether in each of these cases the impediment to run in the elections in Venezuela in 2004 and 2005 was appropriate. Indeed, the Court has no power to decide whether such persons should be prevented from registering and running in those elections, because of the administrative and judicial procedures against each of them. Additionally, the Court notes that the representatives did not submit its written pleadings and sufficient evidence that would allow for the clarification of the alleged discrimination in relation to persons who, in the same alleged circumstances as Mr. López Mendoza, received differential treatment by the National Electoral Council in the elections of 2004 and 2005. Thus, it is not possible to affirm that the right enshrined in Article 24 of the Convention would grant Mr. López Mendoza the authority to require the same response from the National Electoral Council in his case. 195. In conclusion, the State is not responsible for a violation of the right of equal protection before the law enshrined in Article 24 of the American Convention to the detriment of Mr. López Mendoza. D. Duty to adopt domestic legal effects 1. Arguments of the parties 196. The Commission argued that "the causes for the sanction and the grade of the sanctions have not been previously defined" in a “detailed and precise manner, which contravenes the principle of criminal codification” and “affects the possibility of arguing about the appropriateness and proportionality of the sanction in adversarial proceedings." It summarized that "the lack of definition allows for the Comptroller General to exert its own discretion in imposing the sanction and affects the possibility to undergo review by independent courts." Moreover, the Commission argued that "after the declaration of administrative responsibility and the imposition of the fine, notice of the possibility that the punitive process may continue was not expected," and that "domestic law does not set a timeframe for the Comptroller to exercise its power of discretion to politically disqualify" generating "uncertainty that has serious repercussions regarding the exercise of due process." 197. The representatives stated that the disqualification is imposed "without a legal framework that establishes the grade of the punishment," and "without existing definitions of the criteria for the assessment of the penalty according to the gravity of behavior." They indicated that the concepts of severity and elements of the violation "are interpreted and used subjectively, given that in the administrative acts of disqualification [against Mr. López Mendoza], the reasons and the mechanism through which the continuance was determined was not explained, much less supported in the body of evidence whatsoever." They specified that the "exercise of the ius puniendi" headed by the Comptroller "is unlimited, since it can impose administrative sanctions when it so 268 Cf. Official letter No. 01-00-000386 of June 12, 2006, forwarded by the Comptroller General of the Republic to the President Chancellor of the National Electoral Council (CNE) (Case file of annexes to the answer to the application, annex H, tome XXXIX, folios 13807 to 13813). 73