D.2) Challenge against Mr. Canova González 45. Mr. Antonio Canova González, a Venezuelan professor of Constitutional and Administrative Law, was proposed by the representatives of the alleged victim to render expert opinion on “the legal system of the judiciary in Venezuela, and in particular on the Constitutional system, the legal system and the regimen resulting from the judicial emergency and the current legal system [,] and their conformity with the Constitution and with the requirements of professionalism, independence and impartiality, according to the standards of a democratic society and their relevance to the criminal proceeding against professor Brewer Carías, as well as other matters within his area of expertise.” 46. In challenging Mr. Canova González, the State questioned his impartiality, first, based on the fact that he has rendered statements in previous cases against Venezuela before this Court, “which makes him an expert witness whose job is to appear before the Inter-American Court […] to discredit the Venezuelan State.” Secondly, Venezuela argued that the grounds for disqualification established in Article 48(1) (c) of the Rules apply because Mr. Canova González “has acted as legal representative in several cases with the proposed witness Leon Henrique Cottin, which is evidence of the ties of friendship between them, and which undoubtedly favors Allan Brewer Carías.” Venezuela also held that Mr. Canova González “has been a friend [of Mr. Brewer Carías] since 1998,” because he wrote a paper for the book “Third International Meeting on Administrative Law - Allan Brewer Carías” published that year and also “has a paper” in the book “Tribute to Allan Brewer Carías”, published in 2003. 47. In his observations (supra Having Seen 27), Mr. Canova González stated that there was no impediment to his appearance as an expert witness in this proceeding, because none of the grounds for disqualification and none of the assumptions for challenging expert witnesses contemplated in Article 48 of the Rules of the Court applied to him. He held that the State’s reasons for questioning his impartiality “are unfounded.” He added that he had acted “objectively and transparently” when summoned to testify as an expert witness before the Court on previous occasions. As to the grounds established in Article 48(1) (c) of the Rules, he explained that he “[h]as never been an associate of Leon Henrique Cottin, nor ha[s he] been a subordinate, but [has] acted as joint representative in specific legal proceedings based on the decision of the firms involved.” He added that none of those proceedings had any connection with Mr. Brewer Carías, “and even less so with this proceeding or with any of the domestic trials or proceedings that subsequently led to the complaint before the C[ommission].” As to the State’s arguments regarding the publications, Mr. Canova González explained that his role in the collective work prepared as a tribute to Allan Brewer Carías “was limited to submitting a paper authored by [him] entitled: ´The protection of constitutional rights in the Ibero-American countries”, and that he was invited to collaborate by the coordinators and editors. He stated that he “do [es] not understand how this can imply that [he has] a close link with the alleged victim which could affect [his] impartiality.” As to his publication in the book “Third International Meeting on Administrative Law -Allan Brewer Carías”, he explained that this is a compilation of papers presented at an academic event organized by the Foundation for Studies on Administrative Law, to which he was invited by the coordinator and member of the foundation’s Governing Board, and indicated that his paper discussed the suspension of effects of administrative acts. 48. First of all, the fact that Mr. Canova González has rendered expert opinions in other cases before this Court regarding the same State in no way affects his impartiality in rendering an expert statement in this case and is not related to any of the grounds for disqualification contemplated in the Rules. On a previous occasion, when Venezuela filed a 16