92. In its brief presenting the case (supra Having Seen 1), the Commission requested, “according to Article 35(1)(f)) of the Rules of the Inter-American Court , […] the transfer, where pertinent, of the statements of Antonio Canova González, in the case Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, José Luis Tamayo Rodríguez and Alberto Arteaga Sánchez, in the case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, and Param Cumaraswamy and Jesús María Casal Hernández, in the case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Contentious Administrative Matters”) v. Venezuela, who referred to matters of public order [addressed in this case].” Messrs. Antonio Canova González and Alberto Arteaga Sánchez, who rendered expert opinions in those cases, were subsequently offered as expert witnesses in this case by the representatives in their brief of pleadings and motions (supra Having Seen 2). In the definitive list of deponents and in the brief of confirmation (supra Having Seen 15 and 18), the Commission made no reference to the request to transfer statements. In its observations to the definitive lists, the Commission requested permission to submit questions to the expert witnesses Antonio Canova González and Alberto Arteaga Sánchez (supra Having Seen 23), but without making any mention of the request to transfer the statements that both had rendered in the cases of Chocrón Chocrón and Reverón Trujillo. 93. In its observations to the definitive lists of deponents, the State indicated that “the Commission did not ratify the transfer of [the aforementioned five ] statements,” and therefore it considers that “this Court should declare that this motion has been withdrawn, in accordance with [Article] 46 of the Rules of the Court”. 94. Given that when statements and expert opinions rendered in other cases are transferred to the file of a case being heard they have the character of documentary evidence, since they are not received under the adversarial principle and right to defense because the opposing party cannot ask questions, neither the Commission nor the party requesting such transfer has been asked to confirm these in their definitive lists of deponents. 43 95. In this case, the President deems it appropriate to decide, once the expert opinions required in this Order have been received, whether it is useful and necessary to transfer one or several of the aforesaid statements rendered in other cases against Venezuela, granting the parties an opportunity to present observations. Given that the expert opinion of Antonio Canova González (supra Considering para. 50) has been accepted in this Order, it is unnecessary to consider the transfer of his expert opinion rendered in the case Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. K) Manner in which the statements and expert opinions will be received 96. It is necessary to ensure knowledge of the truth and the most complete presentation of the facts and arguments by the parties, insofar as these are pertinent to resolving the matters in dispute, guaranteeing both the parties’ right to defend their respective positions and the Court’s possibility of adequately examining the cases submitted to its consideration, bearing in mind that their number has grown considerably and is increasing constantly. It is also necessary to guarantee a reasonable term in the length of the proceeding, as required for effective access to justice. Accordingly, it is essential to receive the greatest possible number of testimonies and expert opinions through affidavits, and that the Court hear those alleged victims, witnesses and expert 43 Cf. Case of J v. Peru. Order of the Acting President of the Court of April 16, 2013, Considering para. 46; Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia, Order of February 19, 2013 of the President of the Court, Considering para. 54. 27