The body of the article therefore targets negligent and intentional

[mahbubamim077]

And, as for witnesses, the Civil Code, art. 142, no. IV, states that “anyone interested in the subject matter of the dispute” cannot be admitted as a witness.

3. If the capital enemy, which the Civil Code does not consider, may be included in the prohibition as an interested party in the subject matter of the litigation (CLÓVIS BEVILÁQUA, observation no. 6 of the bulk sms colombia aforementioned article), with equal or greater reason the expert who has already expressed his opinion in a previous report must be considered included therein. And it was certainly for this reason that the Code of Criminal Procedure in art. 279, no. II, made it clear that those who have testified in the proceedings or previously expressed an opinion on the subject matter of the expert report may not be experts.”

4. As can be seen, the legislator created a special rule here regarding the expert's impediment. This rule is clear and does not require interpretation. The expert already has an opinion on the matter, expressed in a previous report: he is impeded, is suspected of bias, and cannot work. The illustrious judge who issued the judgment himself recognizes that the subject matter of the expert opinion is the same, so much so that, since it is a case related to bankruptcy, it was assigned to the same court and the same registry office. This reason for suspicion is so important that, despite already being in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the legislator decided to include it as a reason for suspicion of judges. This is what is prescribed in art. 108 of Decree-Law No. 8,527 of December 31, 1945: