A) Proposed by the representatives 1. Jesús Ollarves Irazábal, professor of Criminal Law and Public International Law and Human Rights at the Central University of Venezuela and the Andrés Bello Catholic University of Caracas, who will render an 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 system, the guarantees of due process enshrined in the Venezuelan Constitution and in the American Convention on Human Rights are enforceable during the different phases of a [criminal] proceeding, particularly the investigation”; c) “the role of the Attorney General’s Office and of the Supervising Judge in that proceeding”; d) “his opinion […], from the perspective of the conduct of the criminal proceeding, on the stage at which the Judge must rule on requests or demands for absolute annulment of the court records of said proceeding, due to the violation of the defendant’s human rights”; e) “the nature and effects of the amnesty in Venezuela, according to its general legal system and its connection with Decree 5790, Special Amnesty with the Scope, Value and Force of Law.” B) Proposed by the State : 2. Octavio José Sisco Ricciardi, lawyer, “co-author of the Code of Ethics of Venezuelan Judges”, who shall render an expert opinion on “the Judicial Disciplinary System in Venezuela; historical background [; c]omparison between the previous disciplinary system and the system established in the new Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of 1999[; c]onsiderations on the Code of Ethics of Venezuelan Judges, explaining the differences between both systems and Comparative Law.” 6. To require the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to facilitate the exit from and entrance into its territory of the deponents and expert witnesses, if they reside or are present therein, and who have been summoned by this Order to render their statements at the public hearing regarding the preliminary objection and possible merits, reparations and costs in this case, under the terms of Article 26(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 7. To require the representatives, the State and the Inter-American Commission to serve notice of this Order to the persons they have proposed and who have been summoned to render a statement, in accordance with Article 50(2) and 50(4) of the Rules of Procedure. 8. To inform the representatives, the State and the Inter-American Commission that they must cover the costs incurred in providing or rendering the evidence proposed by them, pursuant to Article 60 of the Rules. 9. To require the representatives, the State and the Inter-American Commission to inform the persons summoned to testify and render expert opinions that, pursuant to Article 54 of the Rules, the Court shall bring to the State’s attention the cases in which the persons summoned to appear or testify before this Court fail to do so, or refuse to testify without legitimate cause or who, in the opinion of the Court, have violated their oath or solemn declaration, so that appropriate action may be taken under the relevant domestic legislation. 32