in its answer to the application that it would provide the curriculum vitae of the proposed expert witnesses “as soon as possible,” which would seem to indicate that the State was aware of its procedural obligation to submit that information in order for its proposed expert witness evidence to be considered. Finally, the State did not submit the names of the individuals that it proposed as expert witnesses, nor did it provide their curriculum vitaes within the 21 days provided for in Article 28 of the Rules of Procedure, nor did it do so even after that deadline until it submitted its final list of declarants. In this sense, the time period of 21 days established in Article 28 of the Rules of Procedure is established for the parties to submit their original briefs and appendixes, and in no way is it intended to allow them to correct material errors in proposals of evidence. The Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal are clear with regard to the opportunities, means, and methods by which the parties can submit documentary, testimonial, and expert witness evidence. Thus, the fact that precedents exist according to which the Tribunal could have ruled that there had been flaws in the evidentiary proposals cannot and should not be understood as generating a procedural right for the parties, and much less serve as an obligation of the Court which, should it not be complied with, would result in an alleged procedural imbalance or infraction of the right to defense. 8. With regard to the opportunity established in Article 46 of the Rules of Procedure to the parties to submit definitive lists of the declarants offered in their initial briefs, the Tribunal recalls that the instruction that the parties submit those lists consists of a procedural opportunity, established in the Rules of Procedure, in order for the parties to confirm or retract their evidentiary proposals made in a timely fashion and in the correct form.5 After this, the parties have the opportunity under the adversarial principle to exercise their right to defense with regard to the evidentiary proposals of the other parties. Thus, the fact that the Court indicates pursuant to the provisions of Article 46 of the Rules of Procedure the moment at which the parties may present those lists cannot, as the State would like, be understood as an acceptance or guarantee of the testimonial or expert witness evidence proposed or - even less so in this case - of the expert witness evidence offered by the State after the deadline. 9. Finally, the Tribunal finds that certain statements made by the State in its request are not accurate, in particular where it states that it did not have a chance to exercise its right to defense. On this point, the Court highlights first that both the Commission and the representatives argued correctly in the procedural moment established for doing so in the Rules of Procedure - namely, in the period for comments on the final lists - that the proposal of expert witness evidence by the State was time-barred. Second, the State submitted its observations on this. Those observations were also taken into account, despite the fact that they had not been requested nor are they provided for in the Rules of Procedure. 10. Pursuant to all this, the Tribunal finds that the failure to indicate the names of the proposed expert witnesses at the proper procedural moment was the result of the State’s own actions. As previously indicated, a mistake by a party with regard to the proposal of evidence within the proper time period and in the proper form is not sufficient reason for a request for the reconsideration of the President’s ruling to be considered admissible.6 Based on this, the Court finds no reason to rule contrary to what the President had decided in his Order. Therefore, it reiterates the content of considering paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Order of the Procedure. In its answer, the State shall indicate: [...] c. the identity of the declarants offered and the object of their statements. Expert witnesses must also submit their curricula vitae and contact information.” 5 Article 46 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court: “Definitive list of declarants: 1. The Court will request the Commission, the alleged victims or their representatives, the respondent State, and, if applicable, the petitioning State to submit definitive lists of declarants, in which they shall confirm or retract offers of evidence submitted within time in accordance with Articles 35(1)(f), 36(1)(f), 40(2)(c), and 41(1)(c) of these Rules of Procedure. Additionally, they must indicate to the Court their position as to which of the declarants offered should be summoned to the hearing, where applicable, and which declarants can render their statements through notary public (affidavits) [..]. 6 Cf. Case of the Barrios Family, Order of the Court of June 17, 2011, Considering clause 17, Case of Forneron and daughter, Order of the Court of October 9, 2011, Considering clause 7. 6