application of the standards that will be discussed by Elizabeth Salmón.” Moreover, these expert opinions offered by the representatives “are directly related to that of Mrs. Portillo, inasmuch as they furnish the Court with background information on the problem and structural characteristics of impunity in Guatemala.” 32. With regard to the Commission’s request, the President recalls the Court’s Rules of Procedure concerning the reception of statements proposed by the Commission, as well as its authority to question deponents offered by the other parties. 17 In particular, it is pertinent to recall that Article 50(5) of the Rules of the Court, applicable to this case, establishes that “[…]alleged victims or their representatives, the respondent State and, if applicable, the petitioning State, may formulate questions in writing for the deponents offered by the opposing party and, if applicable, by the Commission, who have been summoned by the Court to render their statements through affidavits.” This provision should be read in conjunction with Article 52(3) of the Rules, which makes provision for the Commission to question expert witnesses presented by the parties, “if authorized by the Court upon receiving a well-founded request therefor, when the inter-American public order of human rights is affected in a significant manner and the statement in question concerns a topic included in the statement of an expert witness offered by the Commission.” Thus, it is up to the Commission to demonstrate, in each case, the connection both with the interAmerican public order and with the subject matter of the expert opinion it has offered, so that the Court or its President may consider the request in due course, and, if appropriate, authorize the Commission to ask its questions. 33. The object of the expert opinion of Ana Carcedo Cabañas, under the terms defined previously (supra Considering para. 17), is to discuss the causes and characteristics of femicide in Guatemala, as well as the State’s response to that phenomenon and pertinent measures to prevent its repetition. For its part, the expert opinion of María Eugenia Solís García, as proposed by the representatives, will focus on aspects related to “the investigation of cases of violence against women in Guatemala” (supra Considering para. 15). The expert opinion of Elizabeth Salmón, as proposed by the Commission, will refer to standards of due process and investigations into issues of violence against women, and cases where the victim is a child (supra Considering paras. 7, 9 and 12). 34. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the objects of the expert opinions of María Eugenia Solís García and Ana Carcedo Cabañas refer to circumstances specific to Guatemala and, as such, are not related to the inter-American public order, according to the previous considerations in this regard (supra Considering para. 12). Moreover, the Rules of Procedure establish that the “inter-American public order of human rights” must be “affected in a significant manner” for the Commission to be allowed to submit questions to expert witnesses offered by the parties (supra Considering para. 32). Therefore, having regard to Article 52(3) of the Rules, the President does not consider it appropriate to authorize the Inter-American Commission to submit questions to the expert witnesses María Eugenia Solís García and Ana Carcedo Cabañas. 3. Statements and expert opinions to be received at a public hearing 35. The Court records in the instant case are now ready for the opening of oral proceedings regarding the preliminary objection and possible merits, reparations and costs, and therefore the President deems it appropriate to convene a public hearing to receive the 17 Cf. Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of December 20, 2012, Considering para. 20, and Case of Camba Campos et al. v. Ecuador, supra, Considering para. 36. 11