1.
Decisions of the President, provided that they are not purely procedural in nature,
may be appealed before the Court, pursuant to Article 31(2) of the Rules of Procedure of
the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”).
2.
The Tribunal has extensive powers regarding the admission and receipt of evidence,
in accordance with Articles 50, 57, and 58 of the Rules of Procedure.
3.
The appeal lodged by Argentina against the Order of the President of the Court of
June 4, 2012 (supra Having Seen 1) refers to three points, which will be addressed by the
Court in the following order: a) the decision of the President to dismiss the objection filed
against the expert witness Alberto Bovino; b) the decision of the President to declare the
State’s objections to the proposed expert witnesses inadmissible; and c) the decision of the
President to convene expert witnesses Alberto Bovino and Julio Maier to render their expert
opinions at the hearing and not by affidavit.
A) Decision of the President to dismiss the objection lodged against expert
witness Alberto Bovino
4.
The Commission proposed the expert testimony of Mr. Alberto Bovino, with the aim
that he should render an expert opinion on international standards regarding the principle of
legality and nonretroactivity, the scope of the right to appeal a judgment, and the
application of these standards in the criminal prosecution and conviction of the victim in this
case.
5.
In its comments on the final list of deponents, the State lodged an objection against
Alberto Bovino, expert witness proposed by the Commission. The State filed this challenge
on the basis of Article 48(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure, as “[Mr. Bovino] is the applicant
in Petition P-828/01 (Second Instance), currently pending before [the Commission], in
which issues that are clearly similar to those being analyzed in the present case are
discussed.” Argentina sustained that there are “serious doubts” concerning Mr. Bovino’s
impartiality, given that “[he] did not represent Mr. Mohamed in the different instances that
arose in the case, [Mr. Bovino] holds a clear stake in the final outcome, since the protection
of the right to appeal a judgment is essentially the subject under discussion in the complaint
in which he himself is the applicant.”
6.
Pursuant to Article 48(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, the objections made
by the State against Mr. Bovino were communicated to him. In his observations, Mr. Bovino
stated that “the requirements of Article 48(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court have
not been met, as I have not represented Mr. Mohamed at any stage of the proceedings.” He
indicated that “[he] ha[s] never acted as a representative of any alleged victim in domestic
or international proceedings, nor do[es he] represent Mr. Mohamed.” He also sustained that
“the fact that a person happens to be the petitioner in one case does not by any means
affect that person’s impartiality when testifying in another case as an expert witness under
oath.”
7.
In his Order of June 4, 2012, the President dismissed the aforementioned objection
lodged by Argentina upon finding that:3
the grounds for objection claimed by the State do not apply to Mr. Bovino, since Article 48(1)(b)
of the Rules of Procedure considers situations in which the proposed expert witness “is or has
been a representative of one of the alleged victims in proceedings regarding the facts of the case
3

Order of the President of the Court of June 4, 2012, Considering clauses 31 and 32.

2

Select target paragraph3