In the framework of the hearing, the State made a partial recognition of responsibility (infra Chapter V). 9. Order of President Elizabeth Odio Benito, Vice President Judge L. Patricio Pazmiño Freire, and Judges E. Raúl Zaffaroni and Ricardo Pérez Manrique and suspension of the public hearing. On March 15, 2021, within the framework of the first day of the public hearing held in this case, the State requested the recusal of the president and of all the judges of the Court present at the public hearing, with the exception of the Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, alleging “lack of guarantees and objectivity in this process,” pointing to the “the judges’ obligation to be objective and impartial,” alleging “prejudgment” by the aforementioned members of the Court. Via a note from the Secretary of March 15, 2021, the State was ordered to formalize in writing what it indicated orally at the hearing, no later than Tuesday, March 16, 2021. In the note, the parties and the Inter-American Commission were informed that the Plenary of the Court had decided to suspend the aforementioned hearing until further notice and while deciding on what the State would propose in writing. In a brief dated March 16, 2021, the State indicated that it was seeking the recusal of President Judge Elizabeth Odio Benito, Vice President Judge L. Patricio Pazmiño Freire, and Judges E. Raúl Zaffaroni and Ricardo Pérez Manrique, thus “reiterating” the request for recusal initially brought against Judge Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot. On March 17, 2021, the Court, comprised of Judges Eduardo Vio Grossi, acting president, and Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot, ruled inadmissible the State’s request for recusal of President Elizabeth Odio Benito, Vice President L. Patricio Pazmiño Freire, and Judges E. Raúl Zaffaroni and Ricardo Pérez Manrique. 7 Therefore, by Order of the President of March 18, 2021, it was agreed to resume the public hearing related to this case on March 22 and 23, 2021. 8 10. Provisional measures. In the framework of the public hearing held in this case, Ms. Bedoya Lima asked the Court to adopt provisional measures for her mother, Luz Nelly Lima, and for herself. Through an Order of March 24, 2021, 9 the Court found a prima facie situation of extreme gravity and urgency, with the possibility irreparable harm to alleged victims Jineth Bedoya Lima and Luz Nelly Lima, warranting the adoption of provisional measures by the Court. 10 Haupt, and Giovanny Vega Barbosa. 7 In the framework of the request for recusal, Judge Elizabeth Odio Benito and Judges Patricio Pazmiño Freire, E. Raúl Zaffaroni, and Ricardo Pérez Manrique submitted their corresponding observations, the full text of which can be accessed here: https://www.corteidh.or.cr /observaciones.cfm and a summary of which is included in Considering paragraphs 7 to 10 of the aforementioned Order of the Court of March 17, 2021. After analyzing the pleadings of the State and the aforementioned judges, the Court proceeded to conduct a differentiated analysis of the objections raised by the State, on the one hand with respect to the questions formulated by the judges whose recusal was requested and, on the other, regarding the comments they made over the course of the hearing. As regards the questions asked during the hearing held on March 15, 2021, the Court concluded that there was no "hint of partiality on the part of the challenged judges in formulating their questions," but on the contrary, "the questions asked by the judges, analyzed individually, were aimed at better clarifying the facts" (Considering 15). Regarding the comments made by the judges, the Court observed that they were made “within the bounds of respect for the Court's own standards regarding the conditions that must be met for receiving a statement or questioning an alleged victim of acts of violence or rape, with the objective that such procedures ‘be conducted in a comfortable and safe environment.’” (Considering 19). Therefore, the Court dismissed the State’s request in its entirety. Cf. Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 17, 2021. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/bedoya_17_03_21.pdf. Cf. Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 18, 2021. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/bedoyalima_18_03_21.pdf. 8 Cf. Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia. Provisional measures. Adoption of Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 24, 2021. 9 Cf. Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia. Provisional measures. Adoption of Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 24, 2021, Considering 12. 10 6