11. In their definitive list, the representatives requested that the testimony of Mr. Pedro Chicas Romero be replaced by that of Mrs. Dorila Márquez de Márquez, under the terms of Article 49 of the Rules, given that Mr. Chicas Romero is unable to render his statement for medical reasons. A medical certificate was also submitted to justify said request. According to the representatives, both individuals have the same qualities and the object of the original statement offered would be respected. Neither the State nor the Commission presented any observations to this request. 12. As to the request for the substitution of a declarant, pursuant to Article 49 of the Rules, the Court may accept such a replacement “exceptionally”, “upon receiving a wellfounded request” and “after hearing the opinion of the opposing party,” as long as the “replacement is identified” and “always respecting the object of the [… ] expert opinion originally offered.” 13. The President confirms that, in their definitive list, the representatives modified the content of said statement to include “the facts of the massacre and its consequences.” Notwithstanding this, the President considers that in this case Mr. Chicas Romero’s inability to appear before the Court, which the representatives offered as grounds for their request, is sufficiently proven. Given that the parties have been granted the right to submit their observations regarding this request and have not raised any objection; that the representatives have named the substitute declarant who will render a statement, and, in light of the points mentioned in Considering paragraph 10 supra on the object of the statements, pursuant to Article 49 of the Rules, the President decides to admit the substitution proposed by the representatives and, therefore, admits the statement of Mrs. Dorila Márquez de Márquez. The value of this testimony shall be considered in due course, taking into account the existing body of evidence and the rules of sound judgment. Likewise, the object and the procedure to be followed shall be specified in the operative part of this Order (infra operative paragraph 5). c) Admissibility of the expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission 14. In its presentation of the case, the Inter-American Commission offered three expert opinions. According to the information provided by the Commission, these expert opinions would be rendered by: a) Juan Ernesto Méndez on “[t]he context of the armed conflict in El Salvador, especially at the time to which the facts of the case refer. The testimony will refer to the human rights violations that occurred during that time, including the mass and indiscriminate attacks against the civilian population and the modus operandi used during the tierra arrasada (‘scorched earth’)” operations; b) Michael Reed Hurtado on “the General Amnesty Law for the Consolidation of Peace, its background, scope and effects as a factor in the impunity of crimes against humanity committed during the armed conflict by the Salvadoran Armed Forces. Also, the testimony will refer to the attempts at interpretation by the Supreme Court of Justice, the effects of such interpretations, as well as the internal mechanisms to render ineffective the aforementioned Law”, and c) Tal Linda Ileen Simmons on “internationally accepted parameters to be observed in the conduct of exhumations in cases such as this, as well as an analysis of the exhumations conducted internally in light of these standards.” c.1) Extemporaneous offer 15. In submitting the case to the Court, the Commission offered three expert opinions, and indicated their object but did not identify one of the expert witnesses proposed. This point was brought to the attention of the Commission in a note from the Secretariat on 5