judgment. The object of those statements and the manner in which they are received are specified in the operative part of this Order (infra operative paragraphs 1 and 5). 6. Furthermore, in the instant Order the President shall specifically examine: a) the object of the statements offered by the representatives; b) the request for the substitution of a declarant offered by the representatives; c) the admissibility of the expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission; d) the means by which the statements and the expert reports are to be received and the request by the Inter-American Commission to formulate questions for the expert witnesses offered by the representatives; e) the application of the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund, and f) the final oral and written arguments and observations. a) Object of the statements offered by the representatives 7. The President notes, on the one hand, that all the objects of the statements offered by the representatives were modified in their definitive list. In general terms, it is clear that this modification aims to include within the object “the facts of the massacre and its consequences.” In this regard, the representatives offered no explanation about this addition to the content of the statements, and neither the State nor the Commission raised any objection in this regard. 8. As to the joint expert report of the forensic anthropologists of the Argentinean Forensic Anthropology Team (EAAF) Luis Fondebrider, Silvana Turner and Mercedes C. Doretti, the President notes that in their definitive list, the representatives modified the content of this expert opinion to include, in addition, “the difficulties encountered in carrying out the exhumations, the relations with the authorities in charge of the investigation, the identification of the victims, and the exercise of their work in general” (underlining added). Furthermore, the representatives requested that the expert opinion be offered jointly, given that each of the anthropologists was involved in different stages of the exhumation process, which began in 1992 and the last stage took place in 2004. For their part, neither the State nor the Commission made any observations to said evidence. 9. Regarding the statements, it is appropriate to recall that the Court has repeatedly held that the statements of alleged victims and other persons with a direct interest in the case are useful inasmuch as they can provide further information on the alleged violations and their consequences.4 10. Bearing in mind the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility (supra Having seen paragraph 5), and in the absence of any objection to the aforementioned additions, the President deems it appropriate to admit the objects of the statements and of the joint expert report, as presented in the representatives’ definitive list, without prejudice to the fact that the President shall determine the objects of the testimonies and of the joint expert opinion under the terms stated in the operative part of this Order (infra operative paragraphs 1 and 5). b) Request for representatives the substitution of a declarant offered by the 4 Cf. Case of the “Massacre of Pueblo Bello” v. Colombia. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 29, 2005, Considering paragraph 7, and Case Palma Mendoza et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 25, 2012, Considering paragraph 6. 4