6 Contencioso Administrativo [Second Court of Administrative Disputes]. Witness proposed by the State. He testified, inter alia, about his relation to the case of the alleged victims and his incorporation to the Judiciary as Second Court Judge. g) Param Cumaraswamy, United Nations Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (between 1994 and 2003). Expert witness proposed by the Commission. He testified, inter alia, about the guarantees that a state must afford judges under the rule of law to secure their independence and the separation of powers, how those guarantees should be understood in relation to provisional judges, and the rules governing appointment and removal of judges. h) Jesús María Casal Hernández, lawyer and legis doctor. Expert witness proposed by the Commission. He informed, inter alia, on the Venezuelan domestic law governing the Judiciary, the alleged lack of guarantees to secure the independence of the Judiciary and the separation of powers, how those guarantees should be understood in relation to provisional judges, and the rules governing appointment and removal of judges in Venezuela. i) Román Duque Corredor, former Judge of the Chamber for Political and Administrative Matters of the STJ. Expert witness proposed by the Commission. He informed, inter alia, on the Venezuelan domestic law governing the functions of the Judiciary, the error of law as grounds for disciplinary sanction, the alleged lack of guarantees to secure the independence of the Judiciary and the separation of powers, how those guarantees should be understood in relation to provisional judges, and the rules governing appointment and removal of judges in Venezuela. j) Edgar José López Albujas, journalist specialized in judicial affairs. Informative deponent proposed by the representative. He referred, inter alia, to the events surrounding the removal of the First Court judges. k) Alberto ArteagaSánchez, professor of Criminal Law. Informative deponent proposed by the representative. He referred, inter alia, to the detention of chauffeur Alfredo Romero, the entry and search of the seat of the First Court, and the alleged accusations made by political officers through the radio and the television against the First Court judges. 13. The Court notes that the representative stated that “Venezuelan notaries working for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Justice refused to receive and certify the testimonies of María Constanza Cipriani Rondón, […] Edgar López, Jesús María Casal, and Alberto Arteaga Sánchez, which could only be certified by the Consul of Costa Rica in Caracas.” The State did not contest the foregoing. 14. To this respect, the Court regrets the attitude of those notaries that refused to receive said testimonies, especially due to the fact that they exercise a public service with which they are required to comply without discrimination, all the more when considering that their work affects the proceedings before this Tribunal. Furthermore, the Court recalls that, according to Article 24(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the States Parties to a case have a duty to “facilitate compliance with summonses by persons who either reside or are present within the territory.” The persons mentioned by the representative in the previous paragraph were summoned by the President of the Court to render testimony before a notary public and the