E.2) Objections to the admissibility of the testimonies of Santa Palella Stracuzzi, Néstor Castellanos and Mercedes Prieto 65. The State proposed Mrs. Santa Palella Stracuzzi, Mr. Néstor Castellanos and Mrs. Mercedes Prieto as witnesses. Mrs. Santa Palella Stracuzzi, Director of the National School of Prosecutors since 2010, 30 was offered to render a statement on “the System for the Selection and Training of Prosecutors in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.” Mr. Néstor Castellanos, First Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, who also served as the Fifth Judge of First Instance in a Supervising role in the Judicial District of the State Zulia 31, was proposed to render a statement on “the stages of the Venezuelan Criminal proceeding and the remedies available to persons for their defense.” Mrs. Mercedes Prieto, a lawyer and the Director General of Legal Aid at the Attorney General’s Office, appointed by the Attorney General of the Republic to hear the case of Mr. Allan Brewer Carías 32, was proposed to render a statement on “[t]he Venezuelan criminal proceeding against the lawyer Allan Brewer Carías [; t]he current status of the case, and the domestic remedies applied before the Attorney General’s Office and those that may be applied before the criminal Courts.” 66. The representatives objected to the admission of those three statements arguing that the deponents were offered “because they supposedly hold specific positions in the Venezuelan government structure,” though the State “does not […] even mention the records of their appointment to such positions or their publication in the Official Gazette.” 33 With regard to Mr. Néstor Castellanos and Mrs. Mercedes Prieto, the representatives also argued that their statements should not be admitted “either as alleged witnesses, or as expert witnesses or experts”, given that, “according to the content of their statements, they would be acting as expert witnesses and not as witnesses,” which means that they would be “expert witnesses disguised as witnesses.” According to the representatives, the State offered them as witnesses because it could not offer them as expert witnesses, since they would have an impediment. Moreover, the representatives “challenge [d]” Mr. Castellanos and Mrs. Prieto as expert witnesses in this case. 67. The President confirms that upon offering these three witness statements, the State specified the public position held by each of the deponents, which appears to be relevant to the way in which they would have been informed about the facts that are known to them. 68. The President points out that, in calling for the inadmissibility of the three statements, the representatives have not questioned the fact that the individuals proposed as witnesses hold the positions indicated by the State, but rather they consider that the State should have provided more precise information or proof of the public office held by the proposed deponents. The President considers that this objection is not a matter that concerns the admissibility of the evidence. Article 41(1)(c) of the Rules of the Court stipulates that in its answer brief the State must specify “the identity of the 30 As affirmed by the State in its answer brief, in its definitive list of deponents and in its brief confirming the information contained in the definitive list of deponents. 31 As affirmed by the State in its answer brief, in its definitive list of deponents and in its brief confirming the information contained in the definitive list of deponents. 32 As affirmed by the State in its answer brief, in its definitive list of deponents and in its brief confirming the information contained in the definitive list of deponents. 33 In the brief of the representatives this phrase in quotation marks is underlined 21