his post for a term of 90 days as a result of a disciplinary sanction in relation to another case in his docket. As a result, Juan Paredes Fernández understook the case, with temporary status, as of May 1930. 25. On June 6, 2011, the court issued and notified the parties the order granting a six-day period for the presentation of documentary evidence, the request for expert opinions, and the announcement of witnesses. On June 8, and then on July 1, respectively, orders for admission and inadmissibility of evidence from the complainant and the defendants were issued. Of the evidence requested by Palacio, the court denied the linguistic expert opinion of the text of the article "No a las mentiras"31. In this regard, the State notes that "this refusal was framed in the provisions of Article 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code", which states, "experts refers to professionals specialized in different subjects that have been accredited as such, by a previous qualification process of the Regional Directorates of the Council of the Judiciary. "Finally, the State notes that "the requested expert opinion was denied since the linguistic expert requested by the defendant Emilio Palacio Urrutia, did not appear accredited in the Provincial Directorate of the Council of the Judiciary”32. Likewise, most of the evidence requested by the other defendants was denied and a small group was not dismissed by the court33. In this regard, the State indicates that "the requests were presented on June 13, 2011, that is, outside the evidence period provided for in Article 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as Judge Encalada analyzed in her July 1, 2011 ruling, the evidence period expired on June 12, 2011”34. 26. On June 10 and 29, 2011, and then on July 4 of the same year, respectively, the defendants recused the judges Juan Paredes Fernández, Sucre Garcés Soriano, and Mónica Encalada, who on different dates undertook the case temporarily due to the previous recusals. Then, on July 5, July 11, and 13, respectively, the respective recusals were denied, and Juan Paredes Fernández resumed in the case, who appears as the judge who issued the first instance ruling35. The minutes of June 16 and 30, and July 5, 2011, indicate that the judges who undertook the case due to the recusals were within the "Eligible Bank"; however, information was not provided on how the bank was drawn up in relation to the "initial training course", the declaration of "eligible" and the "contest of opposition and merits" indicated in article 72 of the Organic Code of the Judicial Function36. The State did not provide documentation on these requirements. Likewise, the minutes do not reflect the participation or scrutiny of the defendants during the lottery process. 27. On July 1, 2011, the temporary Judge Mónica Encalada summoned the parties to the trial hearing for July 19, the date on which it was actually held37. Between 9 and 16 July 2011, Correa publicly stated that he would withdraw the complaint if the defendants admitted that they had lied and if they "rectified the lie"38. However, on July 19, during the substantiation of the hearing, before the offer by the executives of El Annex 8. Documents judge Oswaldo Sierra and designation of Juan Paredes. Attachments No. 7, 8, 22, and 23 of the Initial Petition presented to the IACHR on October 24, 2011. 30 Annex 9. Documents regarding the opening, application, admission and denial of evidence. Annexes No. 18, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 95 of the Initial Petition presented to the IACHR on October 24, 2011. 31 32 Fact affirmed by the State in its brief of observations submitted to the Commission on December 13, 2016. Annex 9. Documents regarding the opening, application, admission and denial of evidence. Annexes No. 18, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 95 of the Initial Petition presented to the IACHR on October 24, 2011. 33 34 Fact affirmed by the State in its brief of observations submitted to the Commission on December 13, 2016.. Annex 10. Brief of recusals and actions of personnel, minutes, and inadmissibility of recusals. Attachments No. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the Initial Petition presented to the IACHR on October 24, 2011. 35 Article 72. Eligible Bank. Those who pass the initial training course, having been declared eligible in the competitions of opposition and merits, and yet not being appointed, will be included in a bank of eligible persons that will be in charge of the Human Resources Unit. If it is necessary to fill vacancies, priority will be given to those who make up the eligible bank, in strict order of qualification. This bank will also choose who should replace the heads of courts in case of foul, impediment, or contingency. The stay in the eligible bank will be six years. It will be valued as merit to have integrated the eligible bank for new competitions, in accordance with the respective regulations. In the case of vacancies of judges of Provincial Courts, Prosecutors, and Public Defenders of the different territorial sections, the same rules established in this article will apply. 36 37 Annex 11. Documents Judgment hearing. Annexes No. 18 and 31 of the Initial Petition presented to the IACHR on October 24, 2011. Annex 12. Documents Enlace Sabatino. Attachments No. 29 and 30 of the Initial Petition presented to the IACHR on October 24, 2011; See: archivodigitaleu / You Tube. July 9, 2011. Enlace 228 09-07-11 Correa sobre demanda a El Universo editorial 30-S.mpg. See: El Universo, “Correa pidió en varias ocasiones una rectificación a El Universo; ahora sus abogados la rechazan”, July 19, 2011. 38 7