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