American public order identified by the Commission and to the object of the expert opinion to be rendered by the expert José Zeitune.” 88. The President recalls that he admitted the request to substitute the expert opinion Alberto Arteaga Sánchez with that of Jesús Ollarves Irazábal (supra Considering para. 22) and that he considered inadmissible the request to substitute the expert opinion of Rafael Chavero with that of Domingo García Belaúnde (supra Considering para. 23). This affects the analysis of the Commission’s request to submit questions. 89. Regarding the Commission’s request, the President recalls the provisions of the Court’s Rules of Procedure regarding the reception of statements proposed by the Commission, and in relation to its authority to question the deponents offered by the other parties. 41 In particular, it is pertinent to recall that Article 50(5) of the Rules of the Court establishes that “[…]alleged victims or their representatives, the respondent State and, if applicable, the petitioning State, may formulate questions in writing for the deponents offered by the opposing party and, if applicable, by the Commission, who have been summoned by the Court to render their statements through affidavits.” This provision should be read in conjunction with Article 52(3) of the Rules, which makes provision for the Commission to question expert witnesses presented by the parties, “if authorized by the Court upon receiving a well-founded request therefor, when the interAmerican public order of human rights is affected in a significant manner and the statement in question concerns a topic included in the statement of an expert witness offered by the Commission.” Thus, it is up to the Commission to demonstrate, in each case, the connection both with the inter-American public order and with the subject matter of the expert opinion it has offered, so that the Court or its President may consider the request in due course, and, if appropriate, authorize the Commission to ask its questions. 42 90. The President has determined that the object of the expert opinion proposed by the Commission concerns the inter-American public order inasmuch as it involves the analysis of international standards on judicial independence, particularly those related to the stability of the position, from the standpoint of its impact on the rights of the defendant in a criminal proceeding to the guarantees of due process and judicial protection (supra Considering para. 86). The President has confirmed that the expert opinions of Jesús Ollarves Irazábal and Antonio Canova González, proposed by the representatives, basically refer to the situation and legal system of Venezuela. 91. Therefore, having regard to Articles 50(5) and 52(3) of the Rules, the request of the Commission to formulate questions to the expert witnesses Jesús Ollarves Irazábal and Antonio Canova González is not admissible. J) Request by the Commission to transfer five statements rendered in the context of other cases against Venezuela 41 Cf. Case of González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic. Order of the President of the Court of June 3, 2011, Considering para. 48, and Case of Camba Campos et al. V. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Court of February 15, 2013, Considering para. 36. 42 Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Order of the President of the Court of April 14, 2011, Considering para. 25, and Case Camba Campos et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Court of February 15, 2013, Considering para. 36. 26