the State; (d) the way in which the statements and the expert opinions will be received, and (e) the final oral and written arguments and observations. A. Expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission 7. Under Article 35(1)(f) of the Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Commission is entitled to decide the “possible appointment of expert witnesses” “when the inter-American public order of human rights is affected in a significant manner,” and the grounds and purpose must be adequately founded. This provision signifies that the designation of expert witnesses by the Commission is exceptional, and is subject to the said requirement, which is not met merely because the evidence that it is intended to provide relates to an alleged human rights violation. The “inter-American public order of human rights” must be “affected in a significant manner,” and the Commission must substantiate this situation.4 8. In its submission of the case, the Inter-American Commission offered the opinion of María Laura Lencia as expert evidence; the purpose related to “the role of military intelligence in the State’s counterinsurgency policy, the existence and declassification of the Diario Militar [Translator’s note: the name given to a list of 183 people who were disappeared by the Guatemalan security forces between August 1983 and March 1985] and the Historical Archives of the National Police, and their concealment for many years, from the perspective of the effects on both the right of access to information and the right of access to justice for the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations during the internal armed conflict.” In addition, the Commission offered the expert opinion of Manolo Estuardo Vela Castañeda, the purpose of which related to “the persecution of student and labor union leaders in the context of the State’s counterinsurgency policy, the fact that they were viewed as the `internal enemy’ and, in general, the human rights violations perpetrated against these groups.” 9. The State and the representatives did not raise any objection to the offer of these two expert opinions by the Inter-American Commission. 10. This President notes that the expert opinions offered by the Commission do not address issues of inter-American public order, since they do not refer to the interest of the parties in dispute, or to the State concerned, but rather, on the one hand, refer specifically to the role of military intelligence in Guatemala and the declassification of military information and the difficulty of access to this by the next of kin of victims of human rights violations during the Guatemalan armed conflict and, on the other hand, to the alleged context of the counterinsurgency policy in Guatemala and the human rights violations allegedly perpetrated against student and labor union leaders in that country (supra considering paragraph 8). 11. Consequently, the expert opinions of Mr. Vela Castañeda and Ms. Lencia, proposed by the Inter-American Commission, are not admitted. B. Statement of Velia Muralles Bautista and the Commission’s request to pose questions 4 Cf. Case of Pedro Miguel Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 23, 2010, ninth considering paragraph, and the Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2012, third considering paragraph. 4