order of human rights. The President also takes note of the State’s observations, but in this case, the reasons of “procedural economy” stated are not sufficient reason to reject the expert opinion. 6 The latter may be useful and necessary to ensure the most complete presentation of evidence by the parties, insofar as these are pertinent 7. 13. In this case, the State has also had an opportunity to offer any evidence it considers pertinent before the Court. Consequently, the number of witnesses or expert witnesses offered by the representatives, or their similarity with the deponents offered by the Commission, cannot be interpreted as an action that impairs the adversarial process and the principle of procedural equality, and therefore it does not affect per se the admissibility of the evidence offered. 8 14. For the foregoing reasons, the President considers it pertinent that the Court receive the expert opinion of Elizabeth Salmón. The value of said opinion shall be assessed at the proper procedural moment, within the context of the existing body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. The object of this expert opinion and the manner in which it will be rendered shall be determined in the operative part of this Order (infra Operative para. 5). B. Expert and testimonial statements offered by the representatives 1. Expert opinions of Ana Carcedo Cabañas and María Eugenia Solís García 15. The representatives offered as evidence (supra Having Seen 4, 10 and 12) the expert opinions of a) Ana Carcedo Cabañas, who will discuss femicide in Central America, and specifically in Guatemala, its causes and characteristics, the steps that States have taken so far to address this phenomenon, and the measures which, according to her experience, should be adopted to prevent the repetition of the facts referred to in this case, and b) María Eugenia Solís García, who will render an expert opinion on “the investigation of cases of violence against women in Guatemala.” In this regard, she will refer “specifically [to the investigation of] murders of women for gender reasons, at the time of the events in this case and at present,” together with “the main obstacles encountered in efforts to obtain justice in [such] cases” and “the measures which, according to her experience, should be adopted to prevent the repetition of the facts referred to in this case.” 16. The Inter-American Commission made no observations regarding the expert opinions offered by the representatives (supra Having Seen 15). The State, for its part, indicated that a) the expert opinions of Ana Carcedo Cabañas and María Eugenia Solís García would be similar to the expert opinion of Elizabeth Salmón, proposed by the Commission (supra Considering paras. 7, 12 and 14). Therefore, it understood that these would not be necessary, and considered inappropriate the use of the Assistance Fund to cover the costs 6 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez and Family v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of December 20, 2012, Considering para. 13. 7 Cf. mutatis mutandi, Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of June 5, 2012, Considering para. 30, and Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of February 14, 2013, Considering para. 12. 8 Cf. mutatis mutandi, Case of Néstor José and Luis Uzcátegui et al. v. Venezuela. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of November 3, 2011, Considering para. 6. 6