case is in no way affected by “the fact that [he] acted as a witness in a previous case which is unrelated to this one, that [he] contributed to a tribute book, or that [he has] exercised the right to express [his] opinion in a forum on Decentralization and Public Security, which professor Brewer did not promote, organize or participate in.” 56. The President points out that the State did not explain how the situations alleged for challenging Messrs. Tiffer Sotomayor and Ollarves Irazábal were included in any of the grounds for disqualifying expert witnesses stipulated in Article 48(1) of the Rules of the Court (supra Considering para. 37). Nevertheless, both individuals proposed as expert witnesses presented briefs before this Court explaining those situations and affirming that their impartiality and objectivity are not affected for the purposes of rendering an expert opinion in the instant case. 57. As to Mr. Ollarves Irazábal’s alleged contribution to a publication produced as a tribute to Mr. Brewer Carías, the President considers that the manner in which he participated does not demonstrate any link with the alleged victim in this case. Likewise, the President considers that the other situations alleged by the State regarding Messrs. Tiffer Sotomayor and Ollarves Irazábal are not contemplated in the grounds for challenging expert witnesses stipulated in Article 48(1) of the Rules of the Court. 58. Consequently, the President dismisses the challenges filed by Venezuela against Messrs. Carlos Tiffer Sotomayor and Jesús Ollarves Irazábal, proposed as expert witnesses by the representatives of the alleged victim, and admits their expert opinions. The value of such expert opinions shall be assessed at the proper procedural moment, within the context of the existing body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. The objects of these expert opinions and the manner in which they will be received shall be decided the operative section of this Order (infra Operative paras. 1 and 5). E) Objections by the representatives to the admissibility of six witness statements offered by the State 59. In this section the representatives’ objection to the admissibility of the statement Mr. Arcadio Delgado Rosales will not be considered, given that his substitution for the witness Luis Fernando Damiani Bustillos was accepted (supra Considering para. 27) and the representatives did not submit any objections to this request for substitution, or to the testimony of Luis Fernando Damiani Bustillos. E.1) Objections to the admissibility of the testimonies of Julián Isaías Rodríguez, Gonzalo Gómez Freite and Ángel Palacios 60. The State proposed Messrs. Julian Isaías Rodríguez, Gonzalo Gómez Freite and Ángel Palacios as witnesses. The representatives objected to the admission of their statements arguing that these refer to “facts that, clearly, are not the subject of debate in this proceeding.” The representatives argued that “it is manifestly impertinent of the State to propose evidence exclusively related to the events of April 11, 2002.” They pointed out that “[w]hile the political crisis that occurred in Venezuela in April 2002 and that led to the unconstitutional, though brief, overthrow of President Hugo Chávez Frías, constitutes the context that served as a pretext for the unlawful violation of the rights of Professor Brewer Carías, it is not the issue under consideration.” 61. Mr. Julián Isaías Rodríguez, Attorney General of the Republic in 2002, was 19