19. The Court has carefully analyzed the facts submitted by the State and has concluded that none of the grounds for disqualification under paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the Statute have been established, because from the facts it is not evident that any of the judges cited by the State (or the Secretary of the Court) has a direct interest in the matter sub judice or took part in it, under various circumstances, before the case was filed before the Court, nor were there "some appropriate reasons” to justify the disqualification. 20. Indeed, the facts on which the State bases its objection are statements made by the Judges and the Secretary in the course of a private deliberation of the Court that, far from being "illegal" as the State asserts, is a regular and legitimate procedural act, enshrined in Article 24 of the Statute of the Court.4 It is common that private deliberations be carried out immediately after the public hearings, in order to exchange insights on the public hearing and to establish some general guidelines on the case in a preliminary manner, pending the final written arguments of the parties. 21. The Court, like all collegiate bodies, has an internal decision making process in which each of its members formulate preliminary comments that are subject to further analysis, pending evidence or arguments that the parties put forward after the hearing and which are always subject to the final and formal deliberations of the Judges in a specific session that is held after the hearing, once the evidence has been gathered to draft and issue a Judgment, analyzing, in particular the final written arguments of the parties. 22. A reading the transcript of the statements made during the private deliberations of April 1, 2009, shows, in the Court’s opinion, that it conformed to the statutory purposes set forth in the preceding paragraphs. None of the opinions expressed in this private deliberation reveals a lack of impartiality or allows for the inference of the existence of bias against the State. None of the opinions leads to something other than a reasoned and informed legal opinion. 23. In consideration of the foregoing, it is evident that the Judges Diego Garcia-Sayan and Manuel Ventura Robles have not incurred in any of the statutory grounds for disqualification or have performed any act which puts in question their impartiality. 24. Therefore, the Court considers that the allegation of lack of impartiality of the Judges Diego Garcia-Sayan and Manuel Ventura Robles is totally unfounded. 25. For the same reasons, the allegation of lack of impartiality of the Secretary of the Court, Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, which is otherwise inadmissible, because the Secretary is not a Judge nor does he have decision-making powers in the cases under the jurisdiction of the Court is totally unfounded. 4. Continuation with the processing of the case 26. Once the preliminary issues have been resolved, and having determined that both the allegations of impartiality of some Judges and the Secretary are absolutely inadmissible, it corresponds to continue with the normal course of the proceeding composed of the full Court. To this end, the Secretariat must transfer the brief filed by the State of Venezuela on December 14, 2013, to the Inter-American Commission and the representatives of the alleged victim, on the understanding that only the parts related to the interposition of the preliminary objections on lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies and jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court for the protection 4 Article 24(2) of the Statute of the Court states that “[t]he Court shall deliberate in private. Its deliberations shall remain secret, unless the Court decides otherwise.” 4