7 deliberation and signature of the judgment in the instant case, in accordance with the two procedural stages established in Article 14 of the Rules of Procedure: the public hearing and the deliberation and subsequent decision in a case. In this respect, “[i]t is evident that the right to participate in the deliberations corresponds to all the judges and that this right is not limited, as the State claims, to those judges who were present at the hearings.” In other words, in the norms that regulate proceedings before the Court, there is no prohibition regarding the impossibility of a judge who has not participated in the public hearing participating in the deliberation, decision and voting of a case; and c) Concerning the fact that not all the judges signed the judgment, so that, according to the State, the facts and their legal consequences do not reflect the unanimous opinion of the judges, Article 23 of the Statute and Article 13 of the Rules of Procedure, establish the quorum necessary for the Court’s deliberations, which, in its request for interpretation, the State acknowledges was respected in the judgment. Moreover, according to Article 15 of the Rules of Procedure, it is not necessary for the judgment to be adopted unanimously, but only by the majority of the judges present for the voting of a case. Arguments of the representatives of the victims 21. The representatives of the victims requested the Court “to reject the request for interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits and reparations delivered by [the Court] in this case on June 7, 2003, filed by the State of Honduras”; however, it made the following observations with regard to the State’s arguments on the composition of the Court: a) Regarding “the absence of the signature of all the judges of the Court,” they indicated that Article 24 of the Statute established the quorum for any decisions taken by the Court, and in the instant case this was respected at all times; and b) In the press communiqués relating to the public hearing and the judgment, the Court described the participation by Judge Pacheco Gómez. In the latter procedural opportunity, Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure indicates that judgments shall be signed by all the judges who participated in the voting or, even, only by the majority of the judges present. In this case, the judgment is in keeping with the provisions of the Convention, the Statute and the Rules of Procedure, and is also consistent with the constant practice of the Court in its judgments; accordingly, it cannot be understood that there has been an “outrage, by claiming that Judge Pacheco Gómez has been present in the hearings when he was not.” Considerations of the Court 22. Article 19(3) of the Rules of Procedure indicates that: When, for any reason whatsoever, a judge is not present at one of the hearings or at other stages of the proceedings, the Court may decide to disqualify him from continuing to hear the case, taking all the circumstances it deems relevant into account.