the Commission to formulate questions to one of the expert witnesses offered by the representative; d) the manner in which the statements and expert reports shall be rendered; e) the application of the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund, and f) the final oral and written arguments and observations. A. Expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission 1. Expert statement 4. 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.”1 5. In this case, the Commission offered the expert opinion of Laura Cecilia Pautassi, on “the content of the State’s obligations to guarantee access to justice and its relationship with the right to health, as well as international standards regarding due diligence in such cases.” In its definitive list, the Commission pointed out that the expert evidence offered will contribute to the analysis of standards of due diligence and efficacy for relevant domestic investigations and processes in cases of medical malpractice, in the context of the obligations to protect and promote human rights, in situations resulting in permanent after-effects and continuous deterioration of health. The expert opinion will also enable the Court to develop its case-law regarding the State’s obligation to punish violations of fundamental rights and prevent situations of impunity, in relation to its responsibilities stemming from the activities of health professionals. 6. In its answer brief, the State argued that the Commission did not appoint the expert witness in its brief submitting the case, pursuant to Article 35(1)(f) of the Rules, nor did it provide sufficient justification on how the inter-American public order of human rights is significantly affected, which is an essential requirement of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. In this regard, in its brief of observations to the preliminary objections filed by the State, the Commission explained that the object of the expert opinion was properly expressed in the note submitting the case to the Court and that the name of expert witness, Laura Pautassi, and her curriculum vitae were forwarded to the Court in a timely manner, together with the original documents of the case, and within the period established in Article 28(1) of the Rules of Procedure. Furthermore, it stated that the expert opinion offered complies with the regulatory requirement of being linked to aspects of inter-American public order, since it transcends the victims in the case. 7. The representative did not submit observations to the offer of the Commission. 8. According to Article 35(1)(f) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the proper 1 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 Artavia Murillo et al. (“In-vitro Fertilization”) v. Costa Rica. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 6, 2012, Considering paragraph 24. Case of Pedro Miguel Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. 3