consider that this link with the State would necessarily affect his impartiality in rendering an expert opinion in this case. Consequently, the President dismisses the challenge filed against the expert witness Octavio José Sisco Ricciardi. 33. Accordingly, the President considers it appropriate to admit the expert opinion Mr. Sisco Ricciardi, proposed by the State, and recalls that the value of his 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 said expert opinion and the manner in which it will be received shall be decided the operative section of this Order (infra Operative para. 5). D) Challenge filed by the State against four expert witnesses proposed by the representatives 34. In their brief of pleadings and motions the representatives offered the expert opinions of Enrique Gimbernat Ordeig, Carlos Tiffer Sotomayor and Antonio Canova González and confirmed their offers of evidence in subsequent procedural opportunities granted for that purpose (supra Having Seen 4, 15 and 18). The President also admitted the request to substitute the expert opinion of Mr. Alberto Arteaga Sánchez with that of Mr. Jesús Ollarves Irazábal proposed by the representatives (supra Considering para. 22). 35. In its observations to the definitive list of deponents and to the request for substitution (supra Having Seen 24), the State objected to Messrs. Gimbernat Ordeig, Tiffer Sotomayor, Canova González and Ollarves Irazábal. Venezuela filed a challenge against Mr. Enrique Gimbernat based on the grounds set forth in Article 48(1) (f) of the Rules of the Court. The challenge against Mr. Canova González was based, in part, on Article 48(1)(c) of the Rules. With respect to the other two expert witnesses proposed, Venezuela questioned their impartiality without specifying any of the grounds contemplated in Article 48. Furthermore, the State explained its reasons for considering that “the grounds [for challenging expert witnesses] established [in Article 48 of the Rules of the Court] are very limited or restrictive” in terms of “determining the assumptions that could impair the impartiality of an expert witness,” and that this affects the right to defense, to justice and the rights of Member States.” Venezuela argued, inter alia, that “[said] Article concerning objections to expert witnesses was drafted in a restrictive manner, which prevents the parties from presenting before the Judges various facts or circumstances that would determine the partiality of the expert witnesses proposed in the cases.” Therefore, Venezuela requested that the Court “consider and interpret the issue of the moral suitability of the expert witnesses proposed, interpreting its Rules holistically [, so that it] considers the provisions of Article 21 of the Rules of the Court, ‘regarding the impediments, recusals and disqualification of Judges´ to which Article 19(3) of the Statute refers.” The State also held that, according to a broader interpretation, “if a Judge may be removed from hearing a case, on certain specific ground, [one may] conclude that any expert witness may also be disqualified and excluded provided there is justified cause.” 36. In accordance with Article 48(3) of the Rules of the Court, Messrs. Gimbernat Ordeig, Tiffer Sotomayor, Canova González and Ollarves Irazábal were notified of the challenges filed against them by the State. All presented their observations and argued that their impartiality and objectivity were not affected. 37. Article 48 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure regulates matters concerning the “Challenge of expert witnesses.” Subparagraph 1 stipulates the grounds for disqualification in the following terms: 13