system, the guarantees of due process enshrined in the Venezuelan Constitution and in the American Convention on Human Rights are enforceable during the different phases of a [criminal] proceeding, particularly the investigation”; c) “the role of the Attorney General’s Office and of the Supervising Judge in that proceeding”; d) “his opinion […], from the perspective of the conduct of the criminal proceeding, on the stage at which the Judge must rule on requests or demands for absolute annulment of the court records of said proceeding, due to the violation of the defendant’s human rights”; e) “the nature and effects of the amnesty in Venezuela, according to the general legal system and its connection with Decree 5790, Special Amnesty with the Scope, Value and Force of Law (Official Gazette N° 5.870 Extra. of 31-12-2007”; and, f) “other matters within his area of expertise.” 52. With respect to Mr. Tiffer Sotomayor, the State argued that his “lack of impartiality” stems from “having reported on the situation of the Venezuelan Judicial System” in a report prepared by the International Bar Association in connection with the case of Judge María Lourdes Afiuni, and provided a copy of said report. 53. In his observations (supra Having Seen 27), Mr. Tiffer Sotomayor held that the challenge is inadmissible since “it is not based on any provision of the current Rules of the Court.” He also explained how the report mentioned by Venezuela was prepared and who had contributed to it, emphasizing that the topics analyzed therein “have no connection whatsoever with the object of [his] expert opinion in the proceeding [in the case of Mr. Brewer Carías].” He pointed out that “the case of Dr. Brewer Carías is not discussed or analyzed in any way in the IBA report, in which the undersigned participated.” He further stated that “the expert report which will be rendered before this Court has no direct or indirect connection with any of the topics addressed in the aforementioned report […,] for which reason there is no prejudgment whatsoever of the object of the expert report to be rendered before the Inter-American Court.” 54. As to the challenge against Mr. Ollarves Irazábal, Venezuela held that his “lack of [im]partiality stems from having been a witness in a previous case before this Court against Venezuela, in which “he expressed a clear negative position against the Venezuelan Judicial System.” This was also reflected in his views expressed on the subject of impunity at a forum on “Decentralization and Public Security”, which were cited in an article by another author published in March 2010 on the web page of soberania.org. According to Venezuela, Mr. Ollarves Irazábal’s comments reflect “a strong partiality and critical view of the Venezuelan State, which are not consistent with the objective criteria required of auxiliaries of the justice system and in this particular case.” The State also argued that “the links” between Mr. Ollarves Irazábal and the alleged victim are proven because in 2003 he published an article in the book of Studies produced as a tribute to professor Allan Brewer Carías. Venezuela further argued that, as a “fundamental point” which demonstrates his lack of impartiality, Mr. Ollarves Irazábal was dismissed from the Judiciary due to a disciplinary sanction imposed on him for abuse of authority in relation to the way in which he ruled on a challenge filed against all the members of a particular Court and the disqualification of one of them. 55. In his observations, Mr. Ollarves Irazábal held that “[his] theoretical competence as an expert witness is not affected under any circumstance” and that “questioning [his] supposed partiality as an expert witness is based on circumstances that are not contemplated in Article 48 of the Rules of the Court.” He stated that he has no links of any kind with Mr. Brewer Carías. He explained that he contributed to a book prepared as a tribute to Mr. Brewer Carías because all the professors of the law faculty of the Central University of Venezuela were invited to do so. Finally, he held that his impartiality in this 18