Alcocer Povis, all proposed by the State. The object of these statements and the manner in which they will be received shall be decided the operative section of this Order (infra Operative paras. 1 and 5). 7. The acting President shall examine the following aspects in particular: a) the request to substitute an expert opinion offered by the Commission ; b) the tacit withdrawal of six witness statements offered by the State in its answer brief ; c) the admissibility of a witness statement offered by the State in its definitive list of deponents; d) objections by the State to the witness statements offered by the representative ; e) objections by the representative to the witness statements offered by the State; f) the challenge made by the representative to an expert witness offered by the State; g) the admissibility of the expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission; h) the request by the Commission to submit questions to the four expert witnesses offered by the State; i) the admissibility of transferring an expert opinion rendered in the context of the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru and the witness statements submitted as attachments to the brief of pleadings and motions ; j) the manner in which the statements and expert opinions shall be received; k) the application of the Victims’ Assistance Fund; and l) the final oral and written arguments and observations. A. Request for substitution of an expert opinion offered by the Commission 8. In a letter dated January 19, 2013, the Commission requested the substitution of the expert opinion of Mrs. Sofía Macher Batanero, initially offered in its brief submitting the case, for that of Mrs. Patricia Viseur Sellers, under the terms of Article 49 of the Rules of Procedure. In this regard, the Commission stated that Mrs. Macher Batanero had indicated that she “would not be available to render the expert opinion [offered]” (supra Having Seen 1). Neither the State nor the representative presented observations regarding this request. 9. As to the request to substitute a deponent, according to Article 49 of the Rules the Court may “exceptionally, upon receiving a well-founded request” and “after hearing the opinion of the opposing party” accept the replacement of a deponent, provided that “his or her replacement is identified and always “respecting the object of the testimony or expert opinion originally offered.” Such requirements were observed in this case. Furthermore, the acting President notes that the Commission requested the substitution within the 21-day period established in Article 28 of the Rules to submit the corresponding attachments 2, before notifying the case to the parties. The parties did not raise any objections or make observations in this regard. 10. The acting President considers that in this case Mrs. Macher Batanero’s inability to appear before the Court, as indicated by the Commission as grounds for its request, is sufficient under the terms of Article 49 of the Rules, bearing in mind the moment when the request was made and the fact that the parties did not object to this request. Therefore, the President admits the substitution requested by the Commission. The admissibility of said statement, given its relevance to the inter-American public order, shall be determined below (infra Considering para. 36). B. Tacit withdrawal by the State of six witness statements offered in its answer brief 2 Cf. Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Order of the President of the Court of January 25, 2012, Considering para. 27, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Order of the President of December 20, 2012, Considering para. 8. 4