present case, given the assured impact it will have on the petition in which Mr. Bovino is the applicant.”; and g) “[T]he acceptance of Mr. Alberto Bovino as an expert witness will introduce a clear interest into the manner in which this Honorable Court resolves this case. The procedural equality of the parties will plainly be affected in the event of the addition, under the guise of an expert opinion, of an allegation with an interest in the final outcome of the controversy.” 10. In its observations on the State’s petition, the Commission indicated that “it considers that the reason invoked by the State does not apply in the context of Mr. Bovino as a petitioner before the Inter-American Commission.” Moreover, it noted that “beyond his capacity as a petitioner – not provided for in the Rules of Procedure as grounds for objection – the Commission finds that Mr. Bovino’s experience and knowledge in subjects relevant to the present case afford him the status of independent expert; status that is not affected by his participation as a petitioner in a case before the organs of the Inter-American System, regardless of the subject to which that other participation relates. 11. Article 48 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court regulates “Objections to Expert Witnesses.” In its first paragraph, it stipulates the grounds for disqualifying experts in the following terms: 1. An expert witness may be disqualified based on the following grounds: a. he or she is a relative by blood, affinity, or adoption, up to the fourth degree, of one of the alleged victims; b. he or she 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 level or before the Inter-American System for the promotion and protection of human rights; c. he or she currently has, or has had, close ties with the proposing party, or is, or has been, a subordinate of the proposing party, and the Court considers that his or her impartiality may be affected; d. he or she is, or has been, an officer of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights with knowledge of the contentious case in which his or her expert opinion is required; e. he or she is or has been an Agent of the respondent State in the contentious case in which his or her expert opinion is required; f. he or she has previously intervened, in any capacity and before any organ, whether national or international, in relation to the same case. 12. The Court finds that, as Mr. Alberto Bovino is not and has not been a representative of Mr. Oscar Mohamed, alleged victim in this case, either at the domestic level or before the Inter-American System, the situation alleged by the State is not provided for under the grounds for disqualification of expert witnesses stipulated in subsection b) of the aforementioned Article 48(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 13. In addition, the Tribunal considers it pertinent to reiterate that which was indicated in the Order of the President when Mr. Bovino’s expert opinion was first admitted, regarding the fact that Mr. Bovino’s testimony will be assessed at the appropriate opportunity by the Court, within the context of the existing body of evidence, and according to the rules of sound judgment. Moreover, during its assessment of the expert opinion, the Court will take into account the allegations and observations of the State, which will have the opportunity to question Mr. Bovino at the public hearing, and to present its observations on his testimony in its final oral and written briefs. 14. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that there is no basis for modifying the decision of the President in this regard. 4