F) Objections by the State to two witness statements offered representatives by the 74. The representatives offered the witness statements of Leon Henrique Cottin and José Rafael Odreman Lezama, to refer to “the [alleged] violations of due process suffered by professor Brewer Carías.” In the definitive list of deponents and in their confirmation brief (supra Having Seen 15 and 18), the representatives stated that they consider that Mr. Leon Henrique Cottin should be summoned to testify at the public hearing and that Mr. José Rafael Odreman Lezama could render his statement by affidavit. They added that, “in the event that the lawyer Leon Henrique Cottin is unable to appear at the hearing in this case, they propose, alternatively, that the testimony of the lawyer Odreman be received at the hearing.” 75. The State objected to those testimonies, arguing that the representatives “contradict [themselves…] by offering two witnesses who will discuss exactly the same points.” It also objected to the representatives’ request that if Mr. Cottin was unable to appear at the hearing, then Mr. Odreman Lezama should do so. Venezuela considers that this would imply” duplicating the procedural steps”, since Mr. Odreman’s affidavit would be presented prior to the hearing; therefore, “if Mr. Odreman has already submitted his testimony in writing, he could hardly attend the hearing to discuss what he already stated in the written document.” The State considers that this constitutes an illegal substitution of witnesses in the event of the absence of one of them on the day of the hearing, which would infringe “the principle of procedural economy and the preclusion of actions.” 76. This Presidency has confirmed that both witnesses were indeed offered to testify on the same object because of their knowledge of the facts, given that both acted as defense lawyers for Mr. Brewer Carías in the domestic criminal proceeding. The President deems it appropriate to admit both testimonies, bearing in mind that these refer directly to facts disputed in the instant case, rendering them necessary and justifying the receipt of further evidence. 77. Consequently, the representatives’ request to authorize Mr. Odreman to render a statement at the hearing in the event that Mr. Leon Henrique Cottin is unable to appear, is inadmissible. In the event of an exceptional situation arising that would make it necessary to request the substitution Mr. Cottin, the representatives may proceed in accordance with the provisions of Article 49 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 78. The President deems it appropriate to admit the witness statements of Leon Henrique Cottin and José Rafael Odreman Lezama, proposed by the representatives of the alleged victim. The value of such statements shall be assessed at the proper procedural moment, within the context of the existing body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. The object of these statements and the manner in which they will be received shall be decided the operative section of this Order (infra Operative paras. 1 and 5). G) Challenge by the State to the expert witness proposed by Commission the 79. The Inter-American Commission offered the expert opinion of José Jonathan Zeitune, on “international standards applicable to the effects of the provisional appointment of judges and prosecutors in relation to the principle of judicial independence, due process and judicial guarantees for persons subject to a criminal 23