Rafael Chavero Gadzik. 13 The change of object is not merely a formality, but affects its essential content. 14 Therefore, in accordance with Article 49 of the Rules of the Court, the request to substitute Mr. Rafael Chavero’s expert opinion with that of Mr. Domingo García Belaúnde is declared inadmissible. Furthermore, it should be understood that, having explained that Mr. Rafael Chavero has “prior ineludible commitments that […] prevent him from rendering his expert opinion,” the representatives have withdrawn that evidence. Therefore, it is unnecessary to rule on the challenge filed by the State against Mr. Rafael Chavero. B) Request to substitute a witness offered by the State 24. In its answer brief the State offered the witness statement of Mr. Arcadio Delgado Rosales, with the proposed object of discussing “[t]he System of selection, certification and training of Venezuelan judges” (supra Having Seen 4). In its definitive list of deponents and in the brief confirming the information included in that list (supra Having Seen 13 and 18), the State confirmed this offer of evidence and, regarding the object, added that it would also refer to “[c]ompetitive processes and credentials for Admission to the Judicial Profession.” After submitting those briefs (supra Having Seen 25), the State made a request to substitute the statement of the witness Arcadio Delgado Rosales with that of Luis Fernando Damiani Bustillos, explaining that he would “discuss […] the object confirmed” in the definitive list of deponents. In this regard, the State noted that on July 1, 2013 it received a communication “in which the witness, Magistrate Arcadio Delgado, explained that he was unable to attend the hearing, either personally or by Affidavit, as he had to fulfill a number of prior commitments, both in the Constitutional Chamber of the High Court, and at the National School for Magistrates, and was also attending an event in the city of Bogotá, Colombia, in his capacity as a member of the Coordination and Monitoring Committee of the Ibero-American Judicial Summit.” Venezuela provided a copy of the aforementioned communication of July 1, 2013 signed by Mr. Delgado Rosales. 25. This Presidency has confirmed that the State offered said testimonial evidence at the proper procedural moment. Similarly, its request for substitution meets the requirements stipulated in Article 49 of the Rules of the Court (supra Considering para. 18). Venezuela provided a well-founded explanation of the reasons why Mr. Arcadio Delgado Rosales could not render a witness statement and even provided a document signed by him, stating his reasons. Furthermore, the substitution respects the object of the witness originally offered. Likewise, the President emphasizes that, pursuant to the Human Rights, according to the standards of Ibero-American Constitutional Law and with particular reference to those standards insofar as these are accepted by the current Venezuelan Constitution.” In addition, his expert opinion would discuss “the effects of the delay in processing the annulment of the actions demanded by professor Brewer Carías in the proceeding against him, due process and other fundamental rights of the latter, as well as other matters within his area of expertise.” (emphasis added) 13 The object of Mr. Chavero Gadzik’s statement was to discuss “the provisional judicial system in Venezuela and its effects on judicial independence in cases of political interest to the government; the status and provisional nature of the judicial system during the period between 2002 and 2005 and its development up to the present day, with emphasis on any relevant amendments; and the provisional status of the Attorney General’s Office of Venezuela and its relevance to the criminal proceeding against professor Brewer Carías, and other matters within his area of expertise.” (emphasis added) 14 Cf. Case of Forneron and Daughter v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Court of September 13, 2011, Considering para. 33; Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. v. Guatemala. Order of the President of the Court of March 20, 2012, Considering para. 15, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Court of June 4, 2012, Considering para. 52. 10