deponents offered and the object of their statements” and that, “[e]xpert witnesses must also submit their curricula vitae and contact information.” According to the Rules of the Court, the requirements for offering testimonial evidence are less rigorous than those required to offer expert evidence and the Court has not interpreted that it is a duty of the party proposing the testimony to attest to the job or position held by the person. Should the representatives have any questions or observations to make regarding the positions of those witnesses and their relevance in terms of obtaining knowledge of the facts that are the object of their testimony, they may do so by exercising their right to question them and to submit their observations on the evidence, in accordance with Article 50 subparagraphs 5 and 6 and in Article 51 subparagraphs 2 and 3. The Court shall take these questions into account in its eventual assessment of the evidence. 34 69. As to the representatives’ objection that the deponents Néstor Castellanos and Mercedes Prieto are “expert witnesses disguised as witnesses,” this Presidency considers that the objects of their statements have not been proposed in a manner that warrants the inadmissibility of the evidence, given that these deponents are not required to issue a specialized opinion or technical assessment on the compatibility of the system for the selection and training of Prosecutors and of the Venezuelan criminal proceeding and its recursive system, respectively, with international standards on those matters. 70. However, the President takes note of the representatives’ arguments to recall that any questions submitted to those deponents must be consistent with the nature of the testimony and that they must limit themselves to testifying on facts and circumstances that are known to them in their capacity as witnesses. 35 71. Finally, the President notes that, in the brief confirming the information offered in the definitive list of deponents, the State added some elements to the object of the witness statement of Mrs. Santa Palella Stracuzzi. 36 The representatives did not submit observations in that regard. This Presidency considers that this change does not constitute a substantial modification or extension of the object, but rather it specifies in greater detail the object originally proposed in the answer brief. 72. Based on the foregoing considerations, this Presidency admits the witness statements of Santa Palella Stracuzzi, Néstor Castellanos and Mercedes Prieto, proposed by the State, which shall be limited to the facts and circumstances which they can confirm or that are known to them in their capacity as witnesses. 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 shall be received will be decided in the operative section of this Order (infra Operative paras. 1 and 5). 73. It is unnecessary to refer to the challenge against Mr. Néstor Castellanos and Mrs. Mercedes Prieto, since these deponents have been admitted as witnesses, as proposed. 34 Cf. Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of June 5, 2012, Considering para. 16. 35 Cf. Case of Norin Catriman et al. (Lonkos, leaders and activists of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Order of the President, April 30, 2013, Considering paras. 23 a 25. 36 “Public Contest for Admission to the Prosecutor’s Profession. Continuous Training Program for Prosecutors of the Attorney General’s Office” was added. 22