March 15, 2011, which indicated that the deadline for submitting said information expired on March 29, 2011 (supra Having seen 2). On March 25, 2011 the Commission presented the original of the brief submitting the case, together with the list of annexes, and the corresponding evidence, but made no reference to the pending information concerning the third expert opinion offered. On May 27, 2011, two months after the deadline had expired, the Commission submitted the name of the other expert witness proposed, Mr. Juan Ernesto Méndez, together with his curriculum vitae (supra Having seen 2). For their part, the representatives and the State presented no observations regarding this situation. Finally, on February 17, 2012 the Commission submitted its definitive list, which referred to the possible connection of the proposed expert opinion with the Inter-American public order.5 16. According to Article 35.1.f of the Rules of the Court, the appropriate procedural moment for the presentation of expert evidence by the Commission is during the filing of the case, with 21 additional days being granted to submit the relevant attachments, pursuant to Article 28 of the Rules. The Commission, having submitted the name of the proposed expert, Mr. Juan Ernesto Méndez, and his curriculum vitae, after the deadline, did not offer any explanation whatsoever; therefore, the failure to submit the evidence in a timely and proper manner leads to it being declared inadmissible, under the terms of Article 57.2, when insufficient justification is offered for submitting evidence outside the statutory time limit.6 c.2) Effect on the Inter-American public order 17. Article 35.1.f of the Rules provides for the “possible appointment of expert witnesses” by the Inter-American Commission, with due justification of the grounds and object of such appointment, “when the Inter-American public order of human rights is affected in a significant manner.” The implication of this provision is that the appointment of expert witnesses by the Commission is an exceptional circumstance, subject to that requirement, which is not satisfied by the mere fact that the evidence to be produced is related to an alleged human rights violation. The “Inter-American public order of human rights” must be “affected in a significant manner,” and it is up to the Commission to justify that situation.7 5 Regarding the possible connection of the proposed expert opinion with the Inter-American public order, the Commission held that this “will allow the Court to explore the background information examined in the context of the case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, decided recently by the Court. Bearing in mind that the case of Contreras et al. was related to the forced disappearance of children, the expert opinion offered on this occasion will provide the Court with more specific contextual information on the modus operandi of another of the ways in which the Salvadoran security forces incurred in serious human rights violations during the armed conflict, that is, the massive and indiscriminate attacks against the civilian population, known as "scorched earth operations." Although on previous occasions the Court has held that the context in which certain violations occurred in a specific country do not necessarily constitute issues that affect the Inter-American public order, the Commission considers that the background assessment carried out by the Court under the terms indicated will necessarily have an impact on the Inter-American public order, given the scale of the violations which occurred in that context, the fact that a comprehensive judgment in this context can contribute to the historical truth through a judicial investigation, and its similarity to other situations in several countries of the region, specifically in the context of the armed conflicts. Furthermore, these elements will allow the Court to define standards on issues such as access to justice and due diligence in the investigation of human rights violations, which have occurred in similar contexts to that of the instant case. Such standards will have an impact on the struggle against impunity in other countries of the region.” 6 Cf. Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 27, 2011, Considering paragraph 9, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 2, 2011, Considering paragraph 20. 7 Cf. Case of Pedro Miguel Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 23, 2010, Considering paragraph 9, and Case of Palma Mendoza et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 4, Considering paragraph 9. 6