12. The representatives proposed Ms. Muralles Bautista as an expert witness in this case, who would testify about the “findings in the Historical Archives of the National Police, in relation to the forced disappearance of Edgar Fernando García.” The submission of her curriculum vitae was time-barred; therefore the said document is inadmissible. 13. The President observes that, although Ms. Muralles Bautista was proposed as an expert witness, from the purpose of her statement it can be inferred that she will refer to facts and circumstances of which she is aware regarding the findings relating to the forced disappearance of the presumed victim in the case in the Historical Archives of the National Police; therefore, her statement is that of a witness and not of an expert witness. Consequently, the President considers that it is appropriate to receive Ms. Muralles Bautista’s statement in the capacity of a witness and will determine the purpose of her testimony and the way in which it will be received in the operative paragraphs of this decision (infra operating paragraph 5). 14. The Inter-American Commission requested the possibility of questioning Ms. Muralles Bautista, offered by the representatives, given that “her expert opinion will address questions of inter-American public interest.” 15. In this regard, the President recalls the criteria established in the current Rules of Procedure with regard to the reception of testimony proposed by the Commission, as well as in relation to its prerogative to examine the deponents offered by the other parties.5 16. In particular, in accordance with Article 50(5) in conjunction with Article 52(3) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the Commission is entitled to question the expert witnesses presented by the other parties, after certain requirements have been met. However, the Rules of Procedure do not indicate that the witnesses proposed by the State or the representatives can be questioned by the Commission. 17. Having established that Ms. Muralles Bautista will appear as a witness and not as an expert witness, the request of the Inter-American Commission with regard to the possibility of posing questions cannot be admitted. C. Evidence offered by the State 18. In its answering brief, the State offered the expert opinions of Marco Tulio Álvarez Bobadilla and Manuel Giovanni Vásquez Vicente. Subsequently, the State forward their curricula vitae and indicated that Mr. Vásquez Vicente “will testify as a witness.” The President takes note of the proposed change and considers that, given the purpose of the statement, Mr. Vásquez Vicente must be admitted as a witness. 19. The analysis of the curriculum vitae of Mr. Álvarez Bobadilla reveals that he is the “Director of the Peace Archives,” and that he “has presented three expert opinions concerning research on the historical context in cases of human rights violations during 5 Cf. Case of González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic. Order of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, forty-eighth considering paragraph, and Case of Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela, Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 31, 2012, twenty-first considering paragraph. 5