of Ecuador confirmed that between September 25, 2003 and December 9, 2004, Mr. Oyarte’s “immediate boss” was the alleged victim, Mr. Enrique Herrería Bonnet, who at that time was President of the Third Chamber. In the opinion of the President, this confirms that the proposed expert witness was previously a subordinate of one of the alleged victims. 24. Based on the foregoing considerations, the President considers valid the objection raised by Ecuador against Mr. Oyarte. 25. Furthermore, regarding the objection against Mr. Ponce, the President considers that the grounds for the objection raised by the State do not apply, since Article 48(1)(b) of the Rules contemplates the assumptions that the proposed expert witness “is, or has been, a representative of one of the alleged victims in proceedings regarding the facts of the case before the Court, either at the domestic proceeding or before the Inter-American System for the promotion and protection of human rights.” The President has pointed out that “the Rules of Procedure do not establish as grounds for disqualification the fact of the expert witness having filed a petition in another case before the inter-American system for the protection of human rights.”4 26. Based on the foregoing considerations, the President dismisses the objection presented by Ecuador against Mr. Ponce. D) Objection by the Commission to expert witnesses proposed by the State 27. In its answer brief, the State offered the expert testimony of: a) Juan Montaña Pinto, on democratic constitutionalism in Ecuador from the Montecristi Constitution to the Transition Regime, the historical background to the Constitution, the political and legal institutions prior to the 2008 Constitution in Ecuador, the Constituent process in Ecuador regarding democratic acceptance and the juridical methodology of the Montecristi Assembly in Ecuador; the referendum to approve the Constitution, and the transition regime; b) Luis Ávila Linzan, on the Constitutional Tribunal and the Constitutional Court, its juridical and institutional development in the Ecuadorian case from a critical perspective, the historical background, the juridical, social and political nature of the Constitutional Court in Ecuador, the Organic Law of Jurisdictional Guarantees and Constitutional Oversight, the powers of the Constitutional Tribunal of Ecuador and the constitutional powers of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador, and c) Pablo Alarcón Peña, on the development of jurisdictional guarantees in Ecuador, the reform of the jurisdictional guarantees contemplated in Ecuador’s 1998 Political Constitution contrasted with the 2008 Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, the modification of the nature of the guarantees (from preventive procedures to hearings, informal proceedings, jurisdiction and emergence of comprehensive reparations), and the current role of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador in relation to jurisdictional guarantees. 28. The Commission challenged the three expert opinions offered by the State, pointing out that Messrs. Montaña, Ávila and Alarcón “currently hold positions in the Constitutional Court of Ecuador as Director of the Center for Constitutional Studies,                                                              4 Case Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of September 13, 2011, Considering para. 14, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of June 4, 2012, Considering para. 31. 7