opportunities is ungrounded and in this case would affect the right to the equality of arms of the victims’ representatives. Therefore, both the main and subsidiary claims made by the State must be rejected. 6. With regard to the admissibility of the expert witness evidence offered by the State and the "subsidiary" request that the Court order, ex officio, the gathering of expert witness opinions, the pertinent part of the aforementioned Order of the President ruled as follows: 5. In its answer brief, the State requested: “[a]s a primary claim, and pursuant to the Rules of the Court […] that expert evidence be decreed with international experts that be announced to follow. As such, the names and resumes of the expert witnesses will be provided to the Court as soon as possible. Were the Court to agree, the State requests that a period be established to present these names. […] 1. Expert report of an expert in explosives. The expert report given by an expert in explosives, is aimed at accurately determining the characteristics of the explosive device that caused the injuries, deaths, and destruction in Santo Domingo, Arauca. This will establish a high degree of certainty, that the events sub judice resulted from the action of a homemade bomb installed by the FARC, in a truck parked on the only route to the hamlet, and not due to the impact of a device AN-MIA21 launched by the Colombian Air Force.[…] 2. Expert report of an expert in medical forensics. The expert opinion given by an expert in forensic medicine, is aimed at showing that the evidence that makes up the body of evidence do not prove that the injuries and deaths in Santo Domingo on December 13, 1998, were caused by air – land weaponry, implemented by the Colombian Air Force.[…] 3. Expert in chain of custody. The expert opinion given by an expert on chain of custody, is aimed at showing that the evidence used in the first and second criminal proceedings to convict members of the Colombian security forces for allegedly launching a AN-MIA2 device on the hamlet of Santo Domingo, were obtained without complying with protocols on chain of custody. [...] 4. High level expert on cassation. The statement of an expert of the highest level, is aimed at explaining to […] the Court the manner in which Colombia handles extraordinary appeals of cassation, its purpose, procedures, and aims. [...] 5. Expert report by an expert in forced displacement. The expert report given by an expert in forced displacement, is aimed at establishing and clarifying the issues related to the alleged violation of Article 22(1) of the Convention against the alleged victims by the Colombian State. Similarly, it should be noted that the intervention of a expert will facilitate obtaining accurate conclusions. Therefore, the expert evidence offered is relevant and useful. [...] 7. Subsidiary claim Under the circumstance that the principal claim is not admitted, the Colombian government very respectfully requests that if the Court itself so considers, it may provide the names of international experts, whether in regard to expert evidence on the matters set forth above or any others deemed relevant and necessary to achieve clarity and truth. In any event, the Colombian State will assume the costs of the expert witnesses that the Court orders ex oficio.” 6. In its final list of declarants, the State offered four expert witnesses and one witness, in order to render statements at the hearing and via affidavit. At that time, the State identified the persons it proposed as experts, provided their curriculum vitaes, and maintained the purpose of the reports that had been initially proposed. Moreover, the State reiterated its “subsidiary request.” (supra Considering clause. 5). 4