12. The brief of December 20, 2012, in which the Commission stated that it “ha[d] no observations to make to the definitive list of deponents of the representative”, made certain observations regarding two witnesses proposed by the State and requested an opportunity to submit questions to the four expert witnesses offered by Peru. 13. The note of January 11, 2013, in which the Secretariat, in accordance with Article 48(3) of the Rules and following instructions of the acting President, granted Mr. Federico Javier Llaque Moya, proposed as an expert witness by the State, a period to submit any observations deemed pertinent regarding the challenge made against him by the representative (supra Having Seen 11). 14. The brief of January 21, 2013, in which Mr. Federico Javier Llaque Moya submitted his observations to the challenge filed against him. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. The offer and admission of evidence, together with the summons of witnesses and expert witnesses, are regulated in Articles 35(1)(f), 40(2)(c), 41(1) (c), 42(2), 46, 47, 48, 50, 57 and 58 of the Rules of the Court. 2. The Commission offered as evidence two expert opinions and the representative offered four testimonies, while the State offered ten witness statements and four expert opinions, all at the appropriate procedural stage. However, in its definitive list of deponents, the State only confirmed the statements of four witnesses and four expert witnesses, and in addition proposed the statement of Oscar Manuel Arriola Delgado, who had not been included in its answer brief (supra Having Seen 1, 3, 4 and 8). 3. The Court guaranteed the parties the right of defense in respect of the offers of evidence contained in their briefs submitting the case, of pleadings and motions and the answer brief, as well as in their definitive lists (supra Having Seen 9). 4. The State objected to the expert opinions offered by the Inter-American Commission, the witness statements offered by the representative and the inclusion of two statements rendered in the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. The representative challenged one of the expert witnesses proposed by the State and presented objections to three witnesses offered by the State; and the Inter-American Commission pointed out a change in the object of a testimony offered by the State, as well as the allegedly time-barred offer of one of the witnesses proposed by the State and reported that it had no observations to make to the definitive list of deponents submitted by the representative. With regard to the observations presented by the Commission, the acting President emphasizes that the admissibility of a witness statement is a procedural matter that essentially concerns the State and the representative as opposing parties. Consequently, in this case it is not necessary to rule on the Commission’s observations regarding the two testimonies offered by the State. 5. 6. As to those statements offered by Peru that have not been objected to, the acting President considers it appropriate to obtain this evidence, so that the Court may assess its value at the proper procedural moment, within the context of the existing body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. Therefore, the acting President admits the witness statements of Magda Victoria Atto Mendives and Pablo Talavera Elguera, and the expert opinions of José María Asencio Mellado, Miguel Ángel Soria Fuerte and Eduardo 3