5. With regard to the statements and expert opinions offered by the representatives and the Commission, as the case may be, which have not been objected to 3, the President considers it appropriate to obtain this evidence, so that the Court may assess its value at the proper procedural moment, within the context of the existing body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. Consequently, the President requires that the following statements be received: of the three alleged victims proposed by the representatives, namely, Rosa Elvira Franco Sandoval, Leonel Enrique Véliz Franco and José Roberto Franco; of the witness María Luisa de León Santizo, proposed by the representatives; and of five expert witnesses, namely, Ana Carcedo Cabañas, María Eugenia Solís García, Rodolfo Kepfer Rodríguez and José Mario Nájera Ochoa, proposed by the representatives, and Elizabeth Salmón, proposed by the Commission, as set forth below (infra Considering paragraphs 7 to 17). The object of these statements and the manner in which they are to be rendered shall be decided by the President in the operative section of this Order (infra Operative paras. 1 and 5). 6. In this Order, the following aspects in particular will be examined: A) Expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission; B) Expert and witness statements offered by the representatives; C) Manner in which the statements and expert opinions shall be rendered; D) Application of the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund; and E) Final arguments and observations. A. Expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission 7. The Inter-American Commission offered as evidence the expert opinions of a) Elizabeth Salmón, to discuss “international standards on the duty of States to conduct thorough, diligent and effective investigations into acts of violence against women, with special emphasis on the special diligence required when the victims are girls,” and, in particular, the expert witness will refer to “the importance of the investigation as a crucial stage in cases of violence against women and girls ” and b) Elisa Portillo Nájera who will describe “the context of violence against women and girls in Guatemala, the general context of impunity in such cases and the systemic shortcomings in that country’s judicial response to crimes and violations against women” (supra Having Seen 1, 2 and 9, and Considering paras. 2 and 5). 8. The President recalls that 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.” 4 3 As is evident (supra Having Seen 17) the observations expressed by the State in relation to certain deponents do not constitute objections based on the ground for disqualification contemplated in Article 48 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. The observations of the State are examined in this Order (infra Considering paras. 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20 to 23, and 25 to 27). 4 Cf. Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 23, 2010, Considering para. 9, and Case of Camba Campos et al. v. Ecuador, Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of February 15, 2013, Considering para. 11. 4