19. First, in observance of Article 49 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the State was granted an opportunity to submit observations regarding said request for substitution (supra Having Seen 21). This Presidency will take into consideration the views of the State regarding the supposed lack of compliance with the requirements stipulated in Article 49 of the Rules of the Court. 20. As to the requirement that the request for substitution must be “well-founded”, the President points out that the representatives explained that the expert witnesses they were asking to substitute “had, and have, previous ineludible commitments that prevent them from rendering their expert opinions on the date recently set by the Court.” The State argued that the representatives did not comply with that requirement because they did not provide “any evidence” to prove that affirmation. For a request to be considered “well-founded” it is important that it explains the motives or reasons why the person offered cannot render the statement. 10 The Rules do not require the party requesting the substitution to present documentary or testimonial evidence to prove the veracity of that reason. Consequently, the request is properly founded since the representatives explained the reason why the persons initially proposed as expert witnesses could not render their statement. 21. As to the requirements to name the substitute and to respect the object of the expert opinion originally offered, the President finds that both these stipulations were met with respect to the request to replace Mr. Alberto Arteaga Sánchez with Mr. Jesús Ollarves Irazábal. The object of the statement of the substitute expert witness (Jesús Ollarves Irazábal) is the same as that of the expert witness offered in the brief of pleadings and motions (Alberto Arteaga Sánchez). 22. Based on the foregoing considerations, the President accepts the substitution of the expert opinion of Mr. Alberto Arteaga Sánchez with that of Mr. Jesús Ollarves Irazábal proposed by the representatives, pursuant to Article 49 of the Rules. Subsequently (infra Considering paras. 51 to 58), he shall rule on the challenge made by the State against Mr. Jesús Ollarves Irazábal. 23. As to the request to substitute the expert opinion of Mr. Rafael Chavero Gadzik with that of Mr. Domingo García Belaúnde, the representatives explained that the objects were not the same because Mr. García Belaúnde’s opinion “has been adapted to the circumstance that he is an academic who is not Venezuelan,” 11 unlike Mr. Chavero. In this regard, it is clear that the object of the statement of the expert witness proposed as a substitute 12 is indeed substantially different to the object of the expert opinion of Mr. testimony, or expert opinion originally offered. 10 Cf. of Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, Order of the President of the Court of September 10, 2010, Considering paras. 8 and 10; Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, Order of the President of the Court of September 23, 2010, Having Seen 2 and Considering para. 6; Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Order of the President of the Court of April 14, 2011, Considering paras. 16 to 18; Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia. Order of the President of June 5, 2012, Considering paras. 17 to 19; Case Artavia Murillo et al. (“In-vitro fertilization”) v. Costa Rica. Order of the President of the Court of August 6, 2012, Considering paras. 6 and 7; and Case J v. Peru Order of the Acting President of the Court of April 16, 2013, Considering para. 10. 11 Brief submitted by the representatives before the Court on June 19, 2013. 12 The representatives indicated that the object of Mr. García Belaúnde’s expert opinion was to discuss “the priority that a national judge must give to resolving appeals and claims submitted to his jurisdiction, denouncing the violation of human rights enshrined in the Constitution and the American Convention on 9