that might be incurred. Moreover, it pointed out that these expert opinions focus on a “context of violence against women” and that “it has not even been established that [the death of María Isabel Véliz Franco] occurred for reasons of gender.” Therefore, these expert opinions would not “constitute evidence regarding the human rights violations alleged in this case.” 17. As to the proposed expert opinions of Ana Carcedo Cabañas and María Eugenia Solís García, the President considers these useful in relation to this proceeding. However, with regard to the expert opinion of Ana Carcedo Cabañas, bearing in mind the nature of this case, he requires that its object be limited to the situation in Guatemala. In relation to the State’s observations, the President reiterates his previous considerations regarding the similarity of the expert opinions proposed (supra Considering paras. 12 and 13). As to the State’s observation that there is no evidence that the facts of this case fall within a specific context, the President advises that this is, precisely, a matter that must be clarified within the context of this proceeding, based on the evidence produced. As to the State’s observations concerning the application of the Victims’ Assistance Fund, the President refers to the decision already issued in the respective Order (supra Having Seen 6) and to the subsequent instructions on its use (infra Considering paras. 38 to 40). Furthermore, he considers that the State’s arguments regarding the costs of the process are not sufficient to reject the expert opinions in question. 9 Accordingly, the President deems it appropriate to admit the expert opinions indicated. 2. Expert opinions of Rodolfo Kepfer Rodríguez and José Mario Nájera Ochoa 18. The representatives also offered as evidence the expert opinions of a) Rodolfo Kepfer Rodríguez, to describe “the personal and family impact and the physical and psychological effects suffered by the family of María Isabel Véliz Franco as a consequences of the facts of this case and [its] impunity”, as well as “the measures necessary to repair the damage caused”, and b) José Mario Nájera Ochoa, to describe “the way in which forensic procedures were carried out in cases involving the violent death of women in Guatemala and their main failings and limitations”, and also “the main omissions in the way these procedures were carried out in the case of María Isabel Véliz Franco and the measures that the State should adopt to prevent a repetition of events such as those that occurred in this case”. 19. Regarding Mr. Kepfer Rodríguez, the State indicated that “it is not necessary to incur travel expenses for the professional […] specialized in psychiatry to discuss the damage suffered by the family members of alleged victims of alleged human rights violations.” It added that in “this case there is no record that [the physician] has assisted or provided treatment to family members of the victim, but rather that he intends to reiterate aspects that the […] Court has already taken into account in previous judgments.” Therefore, his expert opinion “is not essential to facilitate adjudication by the Court and his attendance at the hearing would undermine procedural economy.” As to Mr. Nájera Ochoa, the State gave a positive assessment of his work at the National Institute of Forensic Sciences (INACIF), even though he has not worked there for some time. However, given that his expert opinion is intended to describe the way in which forensic procedures are carried out and their failings and limitations, the State reiterated that the protocols for carrying out such procedures are different to when he worked there. Consequently, it considered this sufficient reason to assert that “the expert opinion lacks competence [,] since he is not familiar with the procedures on which he is being summoned to testify,” for which reason it challenged his participation. 9 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez and Family v. Argentina, supra, Considering para. 13. 7