rulings, has established the responsibility of the Colombian Air Force in the commission of the Santo Domingo Massacre.” 13. President considers that, although it was raised in a timely manner and in accordance with Article 47 of the Rules of Procedure, the objection to the proposed witness does not detract from the allegation that there was a relation to the facts alleged in this case, which implies that his statement would effectively be testimonial in nature. The assessment of the representatives, in that the testimony might favor a particular hypothesis or a "case theory” by the party offering the evidence, does not affect its admissibility and possible assessment by the Court. Thus, the witness will be heard by the Court, pursuant to the purpose and manner defined in the operative paragraphs of the decision. c) Objections of the State to the testimony offered by the representatives 14. The representatives offered the statement of Mr. Marcos Neite González, whom they identified as “an inhabitant of the community and family member of various deceased victims of the events of December 13, 1998,” to render a statement on the facts and the personal, family, and patrimonial impacts of the events; the consequences of the lack of justice and reparation, and the measures that the State should adopt for the reparation of the violations of human rights. 15. The State expressed that, pursuant to the brief containing pleadings and motions, Mr. Neite González resided in Venezuela and the day of the events was visiting the home of Mrs. Carmen Edilia González Ravelo. The State objected to this testimony, as it deemed that the representatives seek to have his testimony considered as that of an inhabitant of the community, though he is not. 16. The President considers that which was raised by the State, in regard to how Mr. Neite González is not a witness to the facts, a hypothesis that could affect the evidentiary value or weight of the proposed testimony but not its admissibility and possible assessment in the litigation. Therefore, the witness will be heard before the Court, pursuant to the purpose and manner defined in the operative part of the decision. d) Request to replace an expert witness offered by the representatives 17. In its final list, the representatives requested the substitution of the expert witness Mr. Mario Madrid Malo, offered in a timely fashion, for that of Mrs. Elizabeth Salmón. They argued force majeur and presented a simple note from Mr. Madrid Malo wherein he only states “that his current health condition prevents him from being an expert witness” in this case. The representatives considered “the carrying out of this expert opinion of transcendental importance, given the serious effect on the human rights of children.” The State did not present any observations in this regard. 18. In regard to the request to replace one of the declarants, Article 49 of the Rules of Procedure establishes 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, testimony, or expert opinion originally offered.” 19. The President deems that in this case, the impossibility of summoning Mr. Madrid Malo, as noted by the representatives as the basis for their request, has been proven with the note provided by Mr. Madrid Malo. After having heard the opinion of the opposing party, which did not present observations; given that the representatives have individualized the replacement person and that the purpose of the statement that was originally offered was respected, the President admits the replacement proposed by the representatives pursuant to Article 49 of 6