8 e) Federico Andreu, a lawyer and expert witness proposed by the Commission. He referred to the compulsory retirement as a disciplinary sanction in the Armed Forces and its effects regarding the military jurisdiction; the military jurisdiction in Venezuela and the trial against Mr. Francisco Usón Ramírez in such jurisdiction; the crime of “slander to the armed forces” and the sanction for such crime, and the protection of the honor or reputation of the State and its institutions under criminal law; f) Nicolás Espejo Yaksic, a lawyer whose expert witness testimony was proposed by the Commission. He referred to the crime of “slander to the armed forces” and the sanction for such a crime, and the protection of the honor or reputation of the State and its institutions under criminal law; g) Enrique Prieto Silva, a retired General, a lawyer, and an expert in military legislation, an expert witness proposed by the Commission. He referred to military justice and its limits in a democratic society; the independence and impartiality of military tribunals, and the vilification or insult to the Armed Forces as a crime in which the military tribunals are competent; and h) Rocío San Miguel, a lawyer, a university professor, and an expert in military legislation, whose expert testimony was proposed by the representatives. She referred to military justice and its limits in a democratic society; the independence and impartiality of military tribunals, and the vilification or slander to the Armed Forces as a crime and the respective competence of military tribunals. 27. During the public hearing, the following affidavits and expert depositions were received from the following persons by the Court:20 a) Francisco Usón Ramírez, the alleged victim whose deposition was proposed by the Commission. He referred to the content and scope of his statements in the Television interview called “La Entrevista” [The Interview] on April 16, 2004, and to the context in which such statements were made; the trial and the judgment depriving him of his liberty set by the Venezuelan military court due to his statements, and the consequences of the facts of this case to his personal and professional life; b) Gonzalo Himiob Santomé, a lawyer whose deposition was proposed by the representatives. He referred to the public interest that this case produced, and the characteristics of the trial against Francisco Usón Ramírez in the military jurisdiction, and c) Ángel Alberto Bellorín, a retired Venezuelan colonel and expert in military legislation, proposed as an expert witness by the State. He referred to the military legislation and to the Venezuelan criminal trial. 28. Apart from the aforementioned depositions and expert witnesses, the Commission, the representatives, and the State submitted items of evidence at various procedural stages, wherein the parties were able to make observations (supra paras 8, 9, 12 and 13). 20 The State did not present the expert witness testimony of Mr. Jesús Eduardo Cabrera Romero, whom the President of the Tribunal had requested in the Order of February 23, 2009, supra note 6.