statements of seven witnesses and challenged Mr. Sisco Ricciardi, proposed as an expert witness by the State. 23. The brief of June 28, 2013, in which the Commission stated that it had “no observations to make to the definitive lists of the representatives or of the State of Venezuela”. Likewise, the Commission requested the opportunity to submit questions to Messrs. Arteaga Sánchez, Canova González and Chavero Gadzik, proposed as expert witnesses by the representatives. 24. The brief of June 28, 2013 and its attachments, in which the State submitted its observations to the definitive list of the representatives and made observations to the representatives’ request to substitute two expert witnesses. The State also objected to the statements of two witnesses, and challenged the expert witnesses offered as substitutes and the other three expert witnesses offered by the representatives, as well as the expert witness offered by the Commission. 25. The brief of July 2, 2013 and its attachments, in which the State requested the substitution of a witness. 26. The notes of July 2, 2013, in which the Secretariat, following the instructions of the President, conveyed the aforementioned observations of the representatives and the State (supra Having Seen 22 and 24) to the challenged expert witnesses, who were granted a term until July 8, 2013 to submit their observations to the respective challenges made against them. The representatives were also granted a term until July 8, 2013 to submit their observations to the request to substitute a witness proposed by the State (supra Having Seen 25). 27. The briefs submitted on July 4, 6 and 8, 2013, in which Mr. Sisco Ricciardi, proposed as an expert witness by the State, Messrs. Ollarves, Canova, Tiffer, Gimbernat, and García Belaúnde, offered as expert witnesses by the representatives, and Mr. Zeitune, offered as an expert witness by the Commission, submitted their observations to the respective challenges against them. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. The offer and the admission of evidence, together with the summons of alleged victims, witnesses and expert witnesses are regulated, inter alia, in Articles 35(1)(f), 40(2)(c), 41(1) (c), 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52(3), 57 and 58 of the Rules of the Court. 2. The Commission offered as evidence an expert opinion (supra Having Seen 1, 15 and 18). The representatives offered the statement of the alleged victim, two witness statements and five expert opinions and subsequently requested the substitution of the statements of two of the expert witnesses (supra Having Seen 2, 15, 18 and 20). The State offered eight testimonies and one expert opinion and subsequently requested the substitution of the statement of one of the witnesses (supra Having Seen 4, 13, 18 and 25). 3. The Court guaranteed the parties the right of defense in respect of the offers of evidence contained in their respective briefs submitting the case, of pleadings and motions and the answer brief, as well as in their definitive lists and in the requests for the substitution of deponents (supra Having Seen 19, 21 and 26). 4