proceeding, the President shall receive any evidence that in principle could be pertinent, having regard to what the parties have alleged and seek to prove, without this implying a decision or prejudgment of its evidentiary value. 13 Accordingly, the President deems it appropriate to admit the statements of the expert witnesses Rodolfo Kepfer Rodríguez and José Nájera Ochoa. The value of these expert opinions shall be assessed in due course, within the context of the body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. The object and manner in which these expert opinions shall be rendered are specified in the operative section of this Order (infra Operational para. 1). 3. Regarding the testimony of María Luisa de León Santizo 24. The representatives of the alleged victim offered as testimonial evidence the statement of María Luisa of León Santizo on “the different efforts made by Mrs. Rosa Franco to obtain justice and the response of the authorities, as well as the different obstacles encountered in this case and in other similar cases, among other aspects of importance for this process.” 25. The State expressed its “wish to challenge the witness María Luisa de León Santizo,” given that “the [representatives] themselves, in their description of her statement, establish that, ‘…she has accompanied the process to obtain justice in cases of violence against women, including those of María Isabel Véliz Franco. She will testify on the efforts made by Mrs. Rosa Franco’…” Also, the State indicated that it “understands that she was proposed as a witness and not as an expert witness so that she would not be disqualified based on Article 48(1), subparagraphs b and/or f. However, in this case, because she belongs to the very organization that represents the relatives of the victim (REDNOVI), her objectivity is compromised due to a possible conflict of interests.” Consequently, the State requested that her statement be rejected. 26. In this regard, the President notes that the State has not filed a formal objection to the proposed witness, since it does not question the assumption of her participation in efforts to obtain justice in the instant case, but merely makes an observation “so that the statement of the witness in question is not admitted, by virtue of her possible conflict of interests and lack of objectivity.” 27. Based on the provisions of Article 50(1) 14 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the President finds that the deponent has been proposed as a witness and has a duty under Article 51(3) of the Rules to tell the truth regarding the facts and circumstances known to her. 15 For that reason, the President shall not assess the arguments regarding her alleged lack of impartiality and the possible conflict of interests, bearing in mind that this duty cannot be required of witnesses. 16 Likewise, he considers that the object of Mrs. María Luisa de León Santizo’s statements may contribute to elucidate the facts of this case. Once this evidence has been received, the State will have an opportunity to present any observations 13 Cf. Similarly, Case of González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of June 3, 2011, Considering para. 17. 14 Article 50(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, supra. 15 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of September 24, 2008, Considering para. 18, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, supra, Considering para. 11. 16 Cf. Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of December 23, 2010, Considering para. 16, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, supra, Considering para. 11. 9