positions in the government.” He also admitted that he is “currently a Magistrate of the Supreme Court of Justice, in the Court of Social Cassation.” In this regard, Mr. Sisco Ricciardi explained that “the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, establishes an organic separation within the national public administration” and that “each [branch of government is] endowed with operational independence and autonomy.” Mr. Sisco Ricciardi said he considered that he “h [as] no impediment to carrying out the functions required of [him]”, “since there is no relationship of hierarchical dependence between [him] and the Venezuelan State; [he has] worked as a public official for many years, even before obtaining [his] law degree, and that [he is] trained to serve with objectivity, and also, h [as] knowledge of the disciplinary system for judges in Venezuela.” Mr. Sisco Ricciardi emphasized that “[his] current functions as a Magistrate of the Court of Social Cassation [do not allow him] to monitor or verify the performance of the bodies responsible for applying disciplinary measures to judges.” 31. The President recalls that, under Article 48(1) (c) 17 of the Rules, an expert witness may be disqualified on the basis of two assumptions: that he or she has close ties with the proposing party and, in addition, when the Court considers that this relationship affects his or her impartiality. 18 On previous occasions this Court has pointed out that the exercise of public office should not automatically be considered as an impediment to participate as an expert witness in an international proceeding before this Court, 19 since it is necessary to determine whether the position held by the expert witness offered could affect his or her impartiality in rendering the expert opinion for which he or she was proposed. 20 Likewise, it is pertinent to recall that this Court has established that even though the statement of an expert witness may contain elements that support the arguments of one of the parties, this per se does not disqualify the expert witness. 21 32. It has been confirmed that Mr. Sisco Ricciardi has worked as a public servant for three decades and currently serves as a Magistrate of the Court of Social Cassation of the Supreme Court of Justice; there is no record that he has issued any decision or opinion in connection with this case in his capacity as a Judge. The President considers that, given the object of his expert opinion (supra Considering para. 28), there is no reason to 17 This rule states as grounds for disqualification that a witness “has, or has had, close ties with the proposing party, or is, or has been, a subordinate of the proposing party, and the Court considers that his or her impartiality may be affected.” 18 Cf. Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Order of the President of the Court of November 2, 2011, Considering para. 23; 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; Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Court of September 13, 2011, Considering para. 14; Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization”) v. Costa Rica. Order of the President of the Court of August 6, 2012, Considering para. 19; Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Order of the President of the Court of January 25, 2012, Considering para. 20; and Case of J v. Peru. Order of the Acting President of the Court of April 16, 2013, Considering para. 26 19 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Order of the President of the Court of March 18, 2009, Considering para. 88; Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Order of the President of the Court of January 25, 2012, Considering para. 20; and Case of J v. Peru. Order of the Acting President of the Court of April 16, 2013, Considering para. 26. 20 Cf. Case of González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic. Order of the President of the Court of June 3, 2011, Considering para. 24; Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Order of the President of the Court of January 25, 2012, Considering para. 20; and Case of J v. Peru. Order of the Acting President of the Court of April 16, 2013, Considering para. 26. 21 Cf. Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Order of the President of the Court of May 29, 2007, Considering para. 22; Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 2008, Considering para. 34, and Case Artavia Murillo et al. (“In vitro Fertilization”) v. Costa Rica. Order of the President of the Court of August 6, 2012, Considering para. 20. 12