which the State makes reference contains: a) a wrongful and unfounded global strike against the Court as such, accompanied by numerous insulting remarks about the Court and/or some of its members, which lack basis in fact and law, and b) considerations on the alleged lack of impartiality of the Judges Diego Garcia-Sayan and Manuel E. Ventura Robles, and it requested that these judges not hear the case, arguing that “the impartiality and independence in this case is seriously compromised.” 7. In this regard, the Court considers it necessary to specify that it already referred to the State's arguments in the answer to the petition in the case of Chocrón Chocrón V. Venezuela by way of the Order of September 3, 2010, to which it is sufficient to refer, essentially, to the content of that Order. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court considers it appropriate to reiterate what is stated in that decision. 1. Inadmissibility of the global strike against the Court and rejection of the insulting language 8. First of all, the part of the brief in which the State globally attacks the Court is manifestly declared inadmissible and the insulting language that is unduly used by the State is rejected, and the consequences of a possible repetition of such conduct is indicated. 9. This strike lacks any basis in fact and law and constitutes an unwarranted injury to the judicial body of the Inter-American system created for the protection of human rights. 10. The use of insulting language is manifestly inappropriate and inadmissible in any judicial proceeding, and more so before an international tribunal. In ordinary circumstances, the use of insulting language would result in the brief being returned to the sender without processing it and style would be ordered. At this juncture, the Court understands that, so as to not affect the legitimate interests of the parties, it must continue with the substantiation of proceedings in the terms indicated in the following paragraphs. 2. Need for a preliminary decision on the allegations of alleged lack of impartiality of some of the Judges 11. The State recused some of the Judges of the Court for their alleged lack of impartiality, using the preliminary objection mechanism, even though the issue as it was raised does not have such a nature. The Court has stated that preliminary objections are those that seek to prevent the assessment of the merits of a matter in question, by way of the objection of the admissibility of the petition or the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear a particular case or any of its aspects, be it either because of the person, matter, time or place, provided that such approaches can be characterized as preliminary.1 Thus, matters regarding the capacity of a Judge of the Court to integrate or excuse himself or herself from hearing a specific case, is not a matter that is preliminary in nature that may be raised in an exception. Thus, the matters raised by the State in this regard are formally inadmissible as a preliminary objection. 12. However, it is relevant to render a decision on preliminary issues that must be resolved to continue processing the case. This is consistent with the need for immediate decisions on allegations regarding impediments established in Article 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 2 1 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras V. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34 and Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family V. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012 Series C No. 248, para. 30. 2 The text of Article 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure is the following: 2