of allowing expert testimonies that are related to each other, in order to provide a variety of viewpoints– different or complementary – on the issues that they seek to address.” Moreover, it pointed out that both expert opinions refer to matters of interAmerican public order such as analysis of the guarantees of accessibility, due diligence, due process and effectiveness of judicial mechanisms. 30. Regarding this request, the President recalls that the current Rules of Procedure establish limits regarding the reception of statements proposed by the Commission, and also in relation to its authority to question the deponents offered by the other parties. 31. In this regard, the President recalls that, pursuant to Article 52(3) of the Rules, the Inter-American Commission may question an expert witness proposed by another party at the public hearing when the inter-American public order of human rights is substantially affected and the statement concerns matters contained in an expert report offered by the Commission. However, although the report of expert witness Castro Patiño concerns access to justice, a subject connected with the expert opinion of expert witness Pautassi, the object of the first expert opinion refers specifically to guarantees of due process and the State’s procedural initiative in the investigation of a crime and the consequences for the State of impunity in the case, for which reason it is not linked to matters of inter-American public order. Therefore, it is not appropriate to admit the request of the Inter-American Commission. D. Manner in which the statements and expert opinions shall be rendered 32. It is necessary to ensure knowledge of the truth and the most complete presentation of the facts and arguments by the parties, insofar as these are pertinent to resolving the matters in dispute, guaranteeing both the parties’ right to defend their respective positions and the Court’s possibility of adequately examining the cases submitted to its consideration, bearing in mind that their number has grown considerably and is increasing constantly. It is also necessary to guarantee a reasonable term in the length of the proceeding, as required for effective access to justice. Accordingly, it is essential to receive the greatest possible number of testimonies and expert opinions through affidavits, and that the Court hear those alleged victims, witnesses and expert witnesses whose direct testimony is truly indispensable at a public hearing, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the object of the testimonies and expert opinions. 1. Statements to be rendered before a notary public (by affidavit) 33. Bearing in mind the provisions of Article 50(1) of the Rules, the indications of the parties in their definitive lists of deponents, the object of the statements offered and their connection with the facts of the case, as well as the principle of procedural economy, the President deems it appropriate to receive, through affidavits rendered before a notary public, the following statements and expert opinions: Melba Suárez Peralta, alleged victim, officially summoned by the President; Eduardo Tigua Castro, Rodolfo Sández Jiménez and Luis Humberto Córdova Ramos, witnesses proposed by the representative; and the expert opinions of Iván Castro Patiño, Hugo Miguel Morán Sanchez and Ignacio Hanna Musse, proposed by the representative; and of Verónica Valencia and Jaysoon Abarca, proposed by the State. 34. The President emphasizes that Article 50(5) of the Rules of the Court, 9