challenge in another case using this same argument, the President indicated that according to the Rules, the fact that an expert witness may have rendered an expert opinion in previous cases before the Court does not constitute grounds for disqualification. 26 49. The court rulings provided by the State to prove the supposed “ties of friendship” between Mr. Canova González, a proposed expert witness, and Mr. Leon Henrique Cottin, who was Mr. Brewer Carías’ defense lawyer in the domestic criminal proceeding and who has been proposed as a witness before this Court, show that both acted as the legal representatives of two firms in 2004 and that, in this capacity, they submitted joint briefs before the corresponding Courts in matters unconnected with the instant case. This type of professional relationship does not entail close links or a position of subordination, as required under Article 48(1) (c) (supra Considering para. 37). Also, based on Mr. Canova González’ explanation regarding the nature of his contribution to the aforementioned academic publications, his participation has no connection whatsoever with the facts of this case. The situation described by the State does not denote close links or a subordinate relationship with the party proposing Mr. Canova González as an expert witness. 50. Based on the foregoing considerations, the President dismisses the challenge filed by Venezuela against Mr. Antonio Canova González, proposed as an expert witness by the representatives of the alleged victim, and admits his expert opinion. The value of said expert opinion 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 this expert opinion and the manner in which it will be received shall be decided the operative section of this Order (infra Operative para. 1). D.3) Challenge filed against Messrs. Tiffer Sotomayor and Ollarves Irazábal 51. Mr. Carlos Tiffer Sotomayor, a Costa Rican professor of Criminal Law and Criminology, was offered by the representatives of the alleged victim to render an expert opinion on the following subjects: a) “guarantees of due process for defendants during the different phases of the criminal proceeding in the adversarial system, particularly in the investigation phase of that proceeding”; b) “universal standards of independence and impartiality of judges and their specific application to the proceeding initiated against professor Allan R. Brewer Carías”; c) “the legal nature of amnesty, with particular reference to the principle of legality in criminal proceedings and the principle of equality before the law”; d) “the protection of the attorney-client relationship, especially regarding opinions issued in the context of a professional relationship”; e) “the issue of a legal opinion by a lawyer as the exercise of freedom of expression”; f) “reported violations of the right to freedom of expression of professor Brewer Carías”, and g) “other matters within his area of expertise.” Mr. Jesús Ollarves Irazábal, a Venezuelan professor of Criminal Law and Public International Law and Human Rights, was proposed by the representatives of the alleged victim to render expert opinion on: a) “the different phases of a criminal proceeding in Venezuela and its theoretical time frames, according to the General Criminal Procedural Code, and real time frames, according to forensic practice, particularly as regards the interval between the presentation of the charges and the holding of the preliminary hearing”; b) “whether, according to the Venezuelan legal 26 Cf. Case of Néstor José and Luis Uzcategui et al. v. Venezuela. Order of the President of the Court of November 3, 2011, Considering para. 23. 17