1. The offer and the admission of evidence, as also the convening of presumed victims, witnesses and expert witnesses are regulated by Articles 35(1)(f), 40(2)(c), 41(1)(c), 46, 47, 50 and 57 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 2. The Commission offered as evidence two expert opinions, the representatives offered the statement of two presumed victims and one expert witness, and the State offered one witness and one expert opinion. The evidence offered by the representatives was indicated at the appropriate procedural opportunity, except for the submission of the curriculum vitae of the person proposed as an expert witness (supra having seen paragraphs 4 and 8 and infra considering paragraphs 12 and 13). The State and the Commission submitted their definitive lists outside the established time frame (supra having seen paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 12). In this regard, the Commission forwarded its definitive list three days after the time frame had expired, indicating that it did so “because it had not recorded the time limit when the letter was received[; i]n principle, the Inter-American Commission’s document management system only records the main communications, [and i]n this case, the Court’s letter with information on the time limit was received as an attachment to an e-mail.” When submitting the said brief, the Commission explained the effects on inter-American public order, based on which it appointed the two expert witnesses. For its part, the State submitted its definitive list almost one month after the time limit had expired, without having requested an extension or giving any reason for its time-barred submission. Consequently, the President does not admit the said documents and will only consider the evidence offered by the Commission and by Guatemala in the brief presenting the case and in the answering brief, respectively (supra having seen paragraphs 1 and 6). 3. The Court guaranteed the parties the right to defense with regard to the evidence offered in the brief presenting the case, the pleadings and motions brief, and the answering brief, as well as in the definitive list (supra having seen paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12). 4. The Commission indicated that it had no observations on the representatives’ definitive list. The representatives did not present observations on the definitive lists. The State presented observations on the deponents and the expert witness proposed by the representatives. Specifically, with regard to the testimonial evidence, it “ask[ed] that the statements of the persons indicated be assessed in their capacity as presumed victims” and, regarding the expert opinion, that “the efforts made to guarantee access to the information contained in the country’s historical archives be taken into consideration.” 5. With regard to the statements offered by the representatives and the State, which have not been contested, the President considers it advisable to admit the said evidence, so that the Court can assess its significance at the appropriate procedural opportunity, within the context of the existing body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judicial discretion. The President will determine the purpose of these statements and the way in which they will be received in this Order (infra operative paragraphs 1 and 5). 6. The President will now refer to the following aspects: (a) the offer of expert evidence by the Inter-American Commission; (b) the statement of Velia Muralles Bautista and the Commission’s request to pose questions; (c) the evidence offered by 3