provisions of Article 49 of the Rules of the Court, he granted the representatives of the alleged victim an opportunity to submit their observations to Venezuela’s request for substitution and they did not submit any comments in this regard (supra Having Seen 26). 26. Finally, the President notes that, in the brief confirming the information offered in the definitive list of deponents, the State added some elements to the object of the witness statement of Arcadio Delgado Rosales. 15 The representatives did not submit any observations in that regard. This Presidency considers that this change does not constitute a substantial modification or extension of the object, but rather it specifies in greater detail the object originally proposed in the answer brief. 16 27. Based on the foregoing considerations, the President accepts the substitution of the witness statement of Mr. Arcadio Delgado Rosales with that of Mr. Luis Fernando Damiani Bustillos, as requested by the State, pursuant to Article 49 of the Rules and, therefore decides to receive the witness statement of Mr. Luis Fernando Damiani Bustillos. The object of this statement and the manner in which it will be received shall be decided the operative part of this Order (infra Operative Paragraph 1). C) Challenge by the representatives to the expert witness proposed by the State 28. In its answer brief the State offered the expert opinion of Mr. Octavio José Sisco Ricciardi to testify on: “the Judicial Disciplinary System of Venezuela; [h]istorical background [; c] omparison between the previous disciplinary system and the one established in the new Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of 1999[; considerations on the Code of Ethics for Venezuelan Judges [, e] xplaining the differences between both systems and Comparative Law.” The State confirmed this offer of evidence in subsequent procedural opportunities granted for that purpose (supra Having Seen 13 and 18), indicating that Mr. Sisco Ricciardi “was co-author of the Code of Ethics for Venezuelan Judges” and requested that his statement be rendered at a public hearing. 29. In their brief of observations to the definitive list of deponents (supra Having Seen 22), the representatives filed a challenge against Mr. Sisco Ricciardi based on the grounds specified in Article 48(1)(c) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. The representatives argued that, “[b]eyond what is stated in his curriculum vitae, which shows that Mr. Sisco Ricciardi has always worked professionally as a public servant or as a lawyer at the service of the State, Mr. Sisco Ricciardi currently holds the position of Magistrate of the Court of Social Cassation of the Supreme Court of Justice” and provided documents showing his appointment to that position. The representatives consider that “Mr. Sisco Ricciardi not only has close ties with the Venezuelan State, but is obviously in a position of subordination to the State.” They further argued that “the Venezuelan Judiciary is being called into question in this trial, and therefore it is unlikely that Mr. Sisco Ricciardi could act as an impartial expert witness in this case.” 30. In accordance with Article 48(3) of the Rules, Mr. Sisco Ricciardi was informed of the challenge filed against him by the representatives. In his observations, Mr. Sisco Ricciardi accepted that he has worked as a public servant since 1980 and “held several 15 “Competitive processes and Credentials for Admission to the Judicial Profession” was added at the end of the object.. 16 Cf. Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Court of June 4, 2012, Considering para. 52. 11