A) Request to representatives substitute two expert statements offered by the 11. In their brief of pleadings and motions the representatives offered Messrs. Alberto Arteaga Sánchez and Rafael Chavero Gadzik as expert witnesses, and confirmed this offer in their definitive list of deponents. The first deponent was to render an expert opinion at a hearing and the second by affidavit (supra Having Seen 2 and 15). In their definitive list the representatives also referred, in general terms, to the “difficulty in determining with certainty the availability of the deponents who must attend a hearing when […] they [did] not know the date on which it would be held, which could involve the possibility of substituting one of the deponents proposed, once that date has been decided.” Subsequently, when the President granted a procedural opportunity to confirm the information in the definitive lists (supra Having Seen 17), of June 14, 2013 the representatives presented a brief in which they did not include Messrs. Alberto Arteaga Sánchez and Rafael Chavero Gadzik as expert witnesses, but indicated that they were presenting “for the first time” the offer of Messrs. Jesús Ollarves Irazábal and Domingo García Belaúnde as expert witnesses and provided their curriculum vitae (supra Having Seen 18). On that occasion, the President did not grant a period to submit observations to the offer of the expert opinions of Messrs. Ollarves Irazábal and García Belaúnde, given that the representatives did not request a substitution of deponents (supra Having Seen 19). In the brief of June 19, 2013 (supra Having Seen 20), the representatives formally requested that the expert statement of Mr. Alberto Arteaga Sánchez be substituted with that of Mr. Jesús Ollarves Irazábal and also that the expert opinion of Mr. Rafael Chavero Gadzik be substituted with that of Mr. Domingo García Belaúnde (supra Having Seen 20). 12. In its observations (supra Having Seen 24), Venezuela objected to the decision to admit those substitutions and, furthermore, challenged the proposed substitutes. This Presidency shall first rule on the request for substitution and, if appropriate, shall subsequently analyze the challenges filed. 13. The State held that the request to substitute expert witnesses should be “declared inadmissible” by the Court, because the representatives had acted in “flagrant violation of Article 46” of the Rules of the Court, which requires them to confirm or withdraw the offer made in their brief of pleadings and motions and does “not [allow them] to change, without any justification, the deponents offered in the brief of pleadings, motions and evidence.” Venezuela affirmed that, in the brief confirming the definitive lists, the representatives of the alleged victim “changed the expert witnesses, without giving the reasons” for that change. According to the State, “the representative of the alleged victim [e]xtemporaneously excused himself before the Court, and requested reconsideration of the substitution.” Venezuela further argued that “the representatives of Allan Brewer Carías did not present any evidence to show that the expert witnesses originally offered, namely Alberto Arteaga Sánchez and Rafael Chavero ‘had and have ineludible previous commitments that prevent them from rendering their opinion’”. In referring specifically to “[t]he presumed substitution of the expert witness Rafael Chavero with […] Domingo [G]arcía Belaúnde [, …it affirmed that this constitutes] a flagrant violation of Articles 40(2)(c), 46(1) and 49 of the Rules of the Court.” The State further argued that the object of the expert opinion of the substitute expert witness García Belaúnde differs from the object of the opinion of expert witness Rafael Chavero offered in the brief of pleadings and motions, which contravenes Article 49 of the Rules of the Court. In addition, the State requested that the Court declare that the offers of the two expert witnesses, Alberto Arteaga Sánchez and Rafael Chavero Gadzik, and the objects of their expert opinions, had 7