para. 17 supra, the acting President finds that these objections are not admissible at this procedural stage. 23. Based on the foregoing considerations, the acting President admits the witness statements of Ana María Mendieta and Nancy de la Cruz Chamilco, proposed by the State. The value of these statements shall be assessed in due course, within the context of the body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. The object and manner in which these testimonies shall be rendered shall be specified in the operative section of this Order (infra Operational para. 1). F. Challenge by the representative regarding an expert witness offered by the State 24. The State offered the expert opinion of Federico Javier Llaque Moya, who “[i]n his capacity as a lawyer specializing in criminal trials for terrorism [would render] his expert opinion on the criminal proceedings applicable to crimes of terrorism, their amendments, flagrancy in such crimes, as well as their definition as permanent or continuous crimes.” The representative presented a challenge against this expert witness, based on Article 48(1)(c) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, arguing that as a lawyer of the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Crimes of Terrorism he “[i]s […] or has been, a subordinate of the proposing party.” 25. In accordance with Article 48(3) of the Rules, Mr. Llaque Moya was informed of the challenge filed against him by the representative. In his observations, Mr. Llaque Moya confirmed that he is an attorney at the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Crimes of Terrorism and explained that “Public Prosecutors conduct the legal defense of the State.” However, he argued that “the Prosecutors and their attorneys exercise their functions freely and autonomously, within the framework of the legal [d]efense of the State.” He also indicated that the Special Public Prosecutor for Crimes of Terrorism “is administratively under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior, and not of the Ministry of Justice, to which the Office of the Supranational Public Prosecutor is subordinate, and which proposed that [he] participate as an expert witness.” Therefore, he stated that he is not in “a subordinate position to the Office of the Supranational Public Prosecutor.” Mr. Llaque Mora also indicated that both ministries form part of the Executive branch. 26. The acting President recalls that, under Article 48(1) (c) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, an expert witness may be disqualified on the basis of the following two assumptions: that he or she has close ties with the proposing party and, in addition, when the Court considers that this relationship affects his or her impartiality. 12 Moreover, on previous occasions this Court has pointed out that the exercise of public office should not automatically be considered as an impediment to participate as an expert witness in an international proceeding before this Court, 13 since it is necessary to determine whether the position held by the expert witness offered could affect his or her impartiality in rendering the expert opinion for which he or she was proposed.14 12 Cf. Case of Forneron and Daughter v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Court of September 13, 2011, Considering para. 14, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Order of the President of the Court of January 25, 2012, Considering para. 20. 13 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Order of the President of the Court of March 18, 2009, Considering para. 88 and Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Order of the President of the Court of January 25, 2012, Considering para. 20. 14 Cf. Case of González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic. Order of the President of the Court of June 3, 2011, Considering para. 24, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Order of the President of the Court of January 25, 2012, Considering para. 20. 8