3 . (hereinafter “brief of pleadings and motion”), in the terms of Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure. In this brief they referred to the facts stated in the Commission’s application, as well as to a series of “facts supervening” the presentation of the application, among which the decision of the Venezuelan government to “close the open signal of the RCTV station, by not renewing its concession” on May 27, 2007 stands out. 4 The representatives hope that said facts help this Tribunal know the historical context in which the facts of the application culminated, since they consider that the closing constitutes the “realization of the threats” that had been occurring since the end of the year 2006. Thus, they asked the Court that besides the violations argued by the Commission, it declare that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 24 (Right to Equal Protection) of the Convention, in relation to Article 13 thereof, based on the differentiated treatment with regard to the freedom of thought received by people linked to “different media that does not support the government”. In their final arguments they asked that the Court declare the State responsible for the violation of Articles 5, 13, 8, and 25 of the American Convention “in connection with” Articles 1, 2, and 7(b) of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence Against Women (“Convention of Belem do Pará”), in detriment of the alleged female victims. Finally, they asked that the Court order the State to adopt certain reparation measures. 5. On September 21, 2007 the State presented its brief of preliminary objections, response to the application, and observations to the brief of pleadings and motions. In this brief, the State presented two preliminary objections, specifically: “partiality in the duties carried out by some of the judges members of the Court” and the “need to exhaust the remedies made available in the Venezuelan legal system, as a cause of admissibility of the applications presented before the Inter-American human rights system.” Likewise, it asked the Court to declare the violations to the rights acknowledged in Articles 5, 8, 13, 24, and 25 of the Convention, attributed by the Commission and the alleged victims inadmissible and non-existent. It requested that, as a consequence of the inadmissibility of the claims and the brief of pleadings and motions be declared unfounded, as well as the claims and reparations requested. The State appointed Mr. Germán Saltrón Negretti as its Agent and Mr. Larry Devoe Márquez as its Deputy Agent in the present case. 5 II JURISDICTION 6. The Court is competent to hear the present case, in the terms of Article 62(3) of the American Convention, given that Venezuela is a State Party to the American Convention since August 9, 1977 and it acknowledged the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on June 24, 1981. III PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 7. With the prior preliminary examination made by the then President of the Court and pursuant with Articles 34 and 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure, on May 22 and 23, 2007 the attorney of Noé Pernía and Carlos Colmenares) and appendix to the brief of pleadings and motions of July 20, 2007 (power-of-attorney of Armando Amaya). However, the representatives clarified that they do not wish to litigate, within the present case, the State’s decision to close the open signal of RCTV and the execution of that decision on May 27, 2007, since the petitioners, along with other journalists, camera crew, camera assistants, and other employees and directors of RCTV presented a Petition regarding the closing itself of RCTV before the Commission on March 1, 2007. 4 5 Brief of the State of June 12, 2007.