proposed as an expert or expert witness before that body, nor did he act or intervene in that capacity before the Commission. 41. The case file of the instant case shows that Mr. Gimbernat Ordeig prepared an “Opinion”, signed on September 21, 2005 22, which analyzes matters that have been included in the object of the expert opinion proposed before this Court 23 (supra Considering para. 38). 42. The President takes note of Mr. Gimbernat Ordeig’s comments, in the sense that he has not acted nor intervened directly or personally in relation to the case of Mr. Brewer Carías. However, bearing in mind that Mr. Gimbernat Ordeig was proposed before this Court to render an expert opinion based on his legal knowledge, it is appropriate to consider whether the grounds contemplated in Article 48(1) (f) of the Rules of the Court is applicable in this case. This Presidency has confirmed that Mr. Gimbernat Ordeig issued his legal opinion in response to a request from Mr. Brewer Carías and his defense lawyers in the criminal proceeding 24 and that he expressed his opinion on matters included in the object of the expert opinion proposed before this Court. It is particularly relevant that Mr. Gimbernat Ordeig’s opinion was used or presented both in the domestic criminal proceeding and in the proceeding before the Inter-American Commission. At the domestic level, the opinion was cited as grounds for many of the legal arguments used by the defense in their “[r]esponse” to the prosecutor’s charges for the crime of conspiracy in the criminal proceeding against Mr. Brewer Carías. In the proceeding before the Commission it was submitted on January 24, 2007 as Annex 17 of the complaint filed before that body. 43. The Court has held that it is important to avoid using expert witnesses who have previously intervened “in a legally significant capacity” in the defense of a person’s rights. 25 Accordingly, the President considers that, given the manner in which the aforesaid legal opinion issued in September 2005 by Mr. Gimbernat Ordeig was obtained, used and provided as evidence, it may be considered that this implied his intervention in “a legally significant capacity”, in support of the defense of Mr. Brewer Carías in the criminal case against him, and therefore it is reasonable to surmise that his impartiality could be affected. 44. Based on the foregoing considerations, the President admits the challenge filed by Venezuela against Mr. Enrique Gimbernat Ordeig, proposed as an expert witness by the representatives of the alleged victim. 22 The last page of the copy of the report submitted as Annex 17 of the petition filed before the InterAmerican Commission shows that it was signed in Madrid, on September 21, 2005, by Mr. Enrique Gimbernat Ordeig. In the copy of the opinion provided by Venezuela to this Court when challenging Mr. Gimbernat Ordeig, the last page shows that it was prepared in Madrid, on July 12, 2005, but is not signed. 23 In the introductory part of this opinion Mr. Gimbernat Ordeig records that “[on]n behalf of Dr. Allan Brewer-Carías [he is] requested to issue an opinion on whether the indictment formulated against him by the Prosecutor’s Office, shown on page 234 and subs. of Exhibit XIII of File C-43, and in which Dr. Brewer is accused of the crime of conspiracy to violently change the Constitution, contemplated in Art. 144.2 CP, for having participated ‘in the drafting and preparation’ of the ‘Constitutive Act of the Government of Democratic Transition and National Unity’, violates one or several of the fundamental rights of the individual […]”. 24 As stated in the introductory part of the opinion signed by Mr. Gimbernat Ordeig on September 21, 2005 (supra note 23) and on page 196 of the Book submitted as Annex 30 to the Merits Report, the publication consists of a copy of the “[a]nswer brief” of Mr. Brewer Carías’ defense attorneys to the prosecutor’s charges against him for the crime of conspiracy. 25 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Florez v. United Mexican States. Order issued by the InterAmerican Court on August 25, 2010, Considering para. 10. 15