been withdrawn because they were not expressly ratified in the brief confirming the definitive lists. 14. First, the President will consider the procedural stage at which the representatives requested the substitution of two persons proposed to render an expert opinion which, according to Venezuela, constitutes a breach of Article 46 of the Rules of the Court. Subsequently, he will consider whether or not the requests for substitution meet the requirements stipulated in Article 49 of the Rules of the Court (infra Considering paras. 18 to 23). 15. Article 49 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure does not specify a term within which the parties or the Commission should request the substitution of deponents offered in their brief of pleadings and motions. The Court has pointed out, however, that “the parties must take all due care when making their offers of evidence and, before submitting their definitive lists, to ensure that those persons they have proposed to appear at a public hearing are in a position to be summoned by the Court.” 8 16. In this case, the expert witnesses whose substitution was requested by the representatives were offered in a timely manner in the brief of pleadings and motions and were ratified in the definitive list of deponents. However, in the additional brief confirming the information provided in the definitive lists (supra Having Seen 18), the representatives did not include Messrs. Alberto Arteaga Sánchez and Rafael Chavero Gadzik as expert witnesses , but included, for the first time, the offer of Messrs. Jesús Ollarves Irazábal and Domingo García Belaúnde as expert witnesses. Five days later, on June 19 (supra Having Seen 20), the representatives submitted a brief specifying that in their brief confirming the definitive list they did indeed intend to submit a request to substitute the expert witnesses, as they had announced that they might do in their definitive list (supra Considering para. 11), and asked the President to review his decision to not consider this as a request for substitution. Furthermore, the representatives requested that the brief of June 19 be considered as the request for substitution. Bearing in mind that in this last brief the representatives included, prima facie, information on the requirements stipulated in Article 49 of the Rules, the President granted the State a period to submit observations to the request for substitution (supra Having Seen 21). 17. With regard to the fact that, in the brief confirming their definitive list of expert witnesses, the representatives did not explain why they were not including Messrs. Alberto Arteaga Sánchez and Rafael Chavero Gadzik but, on the contrary, offered for the first time Messrs. Jesús Ollarves Irazábal and Domingo García Belaúnde as expert witnesses, this cannot have the legal effect of suggesting that they are withdrawing two expert opinions. Although the representatives did not mention in the brief confirming the definitive list that they were requesting the substitution of two expert witnesses, they did so formally five days later. Consequently, it is admissible to examine the merits of the request for substitution proposed in the representatives’ brief of June 19, 2013. 18. It is appropriate, then, to consider whether the requests for substitution comply with the requirements stipulated in Article 49 9 of the Rules of the Court. 8 Cf. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. United Mexican States. Order Human rights of May 19, 2010, Considering para. 16. 9 of the Inter-American Court This provision states that: Exceptionally, upon receiving a well-founded request and after hearing the opinion of the opposing party, the Court may accept the replacement of a declarant, as long as his or her replacement is identified, and always respecting the object of the statement, 8 of