ORDER OF THE
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FEBRUARY 6, 2014
CASE OF GRANIER ET AL. (RADIO CARACAS TELEVISIÓN) v. VENEZUELA
HAVING SEEN:
1.
The brief of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “the State” or “Venezuela)
received on December 14, 2013 at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the
Inter-American Court,” “the Court,” or “the Tribunal”) wherein, inter alia, it challenged Judged
Diego García-Sayán and Manuel E. Ventura Robles.
CONSIDERING THAT:
1.
Venezuela has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since August 9, 1977, and it
recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. Its jurisdiction has not
been challenged in this case.
2.
The commitment is to adopt the decision on the proceeding which the Court must give to
the brief noted in Having Seen clause 1 of this Order.
3.
By way of that brief, the State filed the preliminary objections of lack of exhaustion of
domestic remedies and lack of jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court in the protection of legal
persons, and filed its answer to the Report on the Merits No. 112/12 filed by the Commission and
its observations to the brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence of the representatives of
the alleged victims. The State, presenting the argument as a preliminary objection, recused
Judges Diego Garcia-Sayan and Manuel E. Ventura Robles and Pablo Saavedra Alessandri,
Secretary of the Court (hereinafter "the Secretary").
4.
The answer to the report on the merits filed by the Commission and to the brief containing
pleadings, motions, and evidence filed by the representatives of the alleged victims must be
processed in a regular manner. However, it is important to clarify that the arguments relating to
the alleged impartiality of two Judges and the Secretary that form the basis of the recusal, do not
constitute a preliminary objection; on the contrary, this is a threshold matter that must be
resolved before continuing with the processing of the case.
5.
Furthermore, the considerations on the Judgment rendered in the case of Uson Ramirez V.
Venezuela will not be processed as given that they are formally inadmissible, as they do not
relate to this case. If the Venezuelan government wanted to make observations on that
Judgment, it should have submitted a request for interpretation under Article 67 of the American
Convention and 59 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court applicable to that case.
6.
To establish foundations for the recusal of some of the Judges of the Court, the State
asked the Court to consider "the grounds in the brief answering the petition filed by [Venezuela]
in the case of [...] Chocrón [Chocrón].” In relation to this request, the Court finds that the brief to

Select target paragraph3