serious nature of the allegations made by the parties, this Presidency considers it important to emphasize that, when they were informed through notes of the Secretariat that the Court would need to reschedule the hearing of the case for a subsequent period of sessions, the summons to a hearing referred to in Article 50 7 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure had not yet been issued. Furthermore, the President considers that no harm was done, as the parties have alleged, given that, once the date of the hearing was reset, they were granted the procedural opportunity necessary to update the information provided in their definitive lists, and were also offered an opportunity to submit their observations to those lists and to raise objections and challenges as established in Articles 47 and 48 of the Rules of the Court. Moreover, when they considered it necessary, the parties made use of the opportunity granted in Article 49 of the Court’s Rules to request the substitution of deponents, a matter which will be decided in this ruling. 8. This Presidency deems it appropriate to obtain the statement of the alleged victim Allan Randolph Brewer Carías, proposed by the representatives, and the witness statement of Ángel Alberto Bellorín, proposed by Venezuela, which were not challenged, nor was any substitution proposed in this regard. Consequently, the President admits this evidence so that the Court may assess its value at the proper procedural moment, within the context of the existing body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. 9. The representatives of the alleged victim objected to the admission of seven witness statements offered by the State and challenged the expert witness offered by the State. For its part, the State objected to the two witness statements offered by the representatives, challenged the five expert witnesses proposed by the representatives (including the two expert witnesses proposed as substitutes), and opposed the request to substitute two expert witnesses proposed by the representatives. Furthermore, the State challenged the expert witness offered by the Inter-American Commission. The State also asked that the Commission’s request to transfer statements rendered in five other cases against Venezuela be considered retracted. The Commission said it had no observations to make to the definitive lists of the representatives or the State. 10. The President will examine the following matters on which there is some dispute or some particular request or question to resolve: a) the request to substitute two expert statements offered by the representatives; b) the request to substitute the statement of a witness offered by the State; c) the objection raised by the representatives to the expert witness proposed by the State ; d) the challenge made by the State to four expert witnesses proposed by the representatives; e) the objections of the representatives to the admissibility of six witness statements offered by the State; f) the objections of the State to two witness statements offered by the representatives; g) the objection raised by the State to the expert witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission; h) the admissibility of the expert opinion offered by the Commission; i) the request submitted by the Commission to formulate questions to three expert witnesses offered by the representatives; j) the Commission’s request to transfer to this case five statements rendered within the framework of other cases against Venezuela; k) the manner in which the statements and expert opinions will be received; and l) the final oral and written arguments and observations. 7 Article 50(1) (Offering, Convocation and Appearance of Deponents) of the Rules states: 1. The Court or its Presidency shall issue an order deciding on the observations, objections, and challenges presented, as applicable; defining the object of the statement of each one of the deponents; requiring the submission of the affidavits deemed appropriate; and summoning all those the Court deems appropriate to a hearing, if necessary. 6