freedom of association (Article 16), to the detriment of Joe Luis Castillo. Finally, the Commission asked the Court to order the State to implement specific measures of reparation. 4. For their part, the Vicariate and CEJIL (hereinafter “the representatives”) filed their brief containing pleadings, motions, and evidence (hereinafter “brief of pleadings and motions”).2 In addition to agreeing in general, and according to their own assessments, with the violations alleged by the Commission, they argued that the State had also violated, in relation to its obligations under Article 1(1), the following rights enshrined in the Convention: the rights to privacy [protection of honor and dignity] (Article 11(2)) of the Convention; the right to freedom of thought and expression (Article 13) of the Convention, and the right to know the truth (Articles 8, 25, and 13) of the Convention. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5. On February 22, 2011 the Commission submitted3 to the jurisdiction of the Court the case it had previously processed against Venezuela under N° 12.605 (supra para. 3), appointing as Delegates the then Commissioner and former Executive Secretary of the Commission, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro and James A. Canton, respectively, and as legal advisers, Mrs. Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, along with Silvia Serrano Guzmán and José María Veramendi Villa, attorneys of the Executive Secretariat. 6. On May 16, 2011 the State and the representatives were notified, respectively, of the submission of the case. 7. On July 16, 2011 the representatives submitted their brief of pleadings and motions, in which they requested, in addition to the above (supra para. 4), that the State be required to implement various measures of reparation, as well as to pay costs and expenses and to have access to the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of this Court (hereinafter “the Legal Assistance Fund”). 8. On November 15, 2011 the State submitted its brief of preliminary objections and its answer to the brief submitting the case and observations to the brief of pleadings and motions (hereinafter “answer” or “answer brief”). The preliminary objection filed referred to “the lack of impartiality” of certain judges of the Court and of its Secretary. It appointed Mr. Germán Saltrón Negretti as its Agent. 9. On November 25, 2011, the acting President of the Court issued a decision in which, inter alia, he ruled that the argument regarding lack of impartiality filed by the State as a preliminary objection was baseless and unfounded. He also stated that it was appropriate that the Court, in its entirety, continue hearing this case until its conclusion.4 2 Articles 25 and 40 of the Rules of the Court. 3 Articles 51 and 61 of the Convention. 4 Cf. Case of Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela. Order of the Acting President of the Court, Judge Alberto Pérez Pérez, on November 25, 2011. 4

Select target paragraph3