reason for presenting his recusal was that “in the 1980s, [he] was a professor of the Public Law Institute of the Faculty of Legal and Political Sciences of the Universidad Central de Venezuela, and Mr. Brewer Carías was its Director at the time; consequently, [he] had a professional and work-related relationship with [Mr. Brewer Carías] as [his] superior, which was, moreover, excellent.” Judge Vio Grossi added that, “[e]ven though all this was some time ago, [he] would not want this fact to give rise to any doubt, however minimal, with regard to the impartiality of both [him]self, and especially of the Court, if [he] took part in the case in question.” 4. In a communication of September 7, 2012, the President of the Inter-American Court informed Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi that, “having consulted with the other judges of the Court and pursuant to Articles 19 of the Court’s Statute and 21 of its Rules of Procedure, [he] found it reasonable to accept his explanation and, consequently, accept[ed] his recusal.” 5. In the brief presented on November 12, 2012 (supra having seen paragraph 4), the State, inter alia, indicated that it “rejects the recusal” of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi. In this regard, Venezuela affirmed that “this recusal […] is unfounded, because the work-related dependence with regard to Mr. Brewer was more than 30 years ago, and furthermore, he does not assert that, currently, there is conflict of interests owing to his friendship with the lawyer Allan Brewer Carías, merely indicating that his professional and work-related relationship was excellent.” The State also asserted that it “considers that [the said] recusal […] is due to pressure from other judges of the Court owing to his dissenting opinion in the Raúl Díaz Peña judgment,” in which he included “considerations on the need to exhaust domestic remedies.” Venezuela maintained that, in the case of Brewer Carías, the InterAmerican Commission had declared the petition admissible even though “the presumed victim had not exhausted the domestic remedies […].” In this regard, the State indicated that “[o]wing to the excellent contribution made by Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi [in the said opinion], to respect for the provisions of the Convention, it is very clear that pressure has been brought to bear on him by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights not to hear a case in which the presumed victim has openly declared that he has not been willing to submit to the jurisdiction of the Venezuelan State […].” 6. Even though the said affirmations of the State concerning its “rejection” of the recusal presented by a judge do not affect the way in which the brief filing a preliminary objection, answering the submission of the case, and with observations on the motions and arguments brief should be processed according to the Rules of Procedure, the Court finds it necessary to rule in this regard before continuing to process the case. 7. The Court advised Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi of that part of Venezuela’s brief in which it “rejects the recusal presented” by this Judge. On November 23, 2012, Judge Vio Grossi addressed a note to the President of the Court and, through him to the Court, in which he stated his “most categorical” rejection of the affirmations made by Venezuela that the recusal in question “was due to pressure by other judges of the Court” and indicated that such affirmations “are absolutely false.” 8. The pertinent part of Article 19 (Disqualification) of the Statute of the Inter-American Court establishes that: 1. Judges 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. 2