3. The allegation on the lack of impartiality is totally unfounded 13. For reasons that will be made explicit in the following paragraphs, the Court finds that the allegation of the lack of impartiality is totally unfounded and none of the grounds for recusals provided by the applicable law have been established. 14. The grounds for recusal are set forth in Article 19(1) of the Statute of the Inter-American Court, according to which “[j]udges may not take part in matters in which, in the opinion of the Court, they or members of their family have a direct interest or in which they have previously taken part as agents, counsel or advocates, or as members of a national or international court or an investigatory committee, or in any other capacity.” The same Article 19 adds, in paragraphs 2 and 3, the possibility of disqualification "for some [other] appropriate reason.” 15. As a consequence, there are three general hypotheses to propose, analyze and resolve the exclusion of a judge from hearing a matter that is subject to the consideration of the Court, namely, that: a) the judge has a direct interest in the matter sub judice, b) the judge had intervened in the case, under various circumstances, before the case was filed before the Court, or c) the Judge or the President of the Court considered that given the circumstances there is "some appropriate reason" that justifies the disqualification, distinct from those mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the Statute. 16. It has been the Court’s practice to duly consider the reasons given to support the exclusion of a judge from hearing a case and take into account, as elements for the respective decision, both the relationship between the judge and the matter subject to trial, which could encompass said criteria, as well as the best interest of justice.3 If a reason for an exclusion is established, the judge must abstain from hearing the case. 17. According to the State, in this case it argued that "impartiality in the exercise of office of the [recused] judges and the Secretary of the Court [...], is seriously compromised given the fact that they participated in the judgment rendered against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the case of General Francisco Uson Ramirez.” 18. The Venezuelan State considered that the Judges who seek to judge it, “have and hold a direct interest in this case.” It based the recusal in this case on the private deliberation of the Court immediately following the public hearing in the case of Uson Ramirez V. Venezuela, held on April 1, 2009, in the XXXVIII Extraordinary Period of Sessions of the Court, in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, whose content was learned when, by mistake, a CD containing not only the recording of the public hearing, but also of the private deliberation was given to the State. It is of the State’s opinion that the statements made in this private deliberation by the abovementioned Judges, the assessment of the evidence presented by the State in the public hearing, and the alleged fact that the Court has ignored the political developments during the years 2002, 2003 and 2004 in Venezuela, demonstrate "lack of impartiality of this international body.” Motions for recusal or allegations of impediment must be filed prior to the first hearing of the case. However, if the grounds therefore occur or become known after that hearing, such motions may be submitted to the Court at the first possible opportunity so that it can rule on the matter immediately 3 Cf. Case of Gabriela Perozo et al V. Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 18, 2007, Considering clause six; Case of Barrios Family V. Venezuela. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 14, 2011, Considering clause 17; Case of Nestor José and Luis Uzcátegui et al V. Venezuela. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 24, 2011, considering clause 17; Case of Díaz Peña V. Venezuela. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 24, 2011, Considering clause 17, and Case of Castillo González et al V. Venezuela. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2011, Considering clause 17. 3