allegation that the expert witness evidence offered by the State was time-barred, the State was ordered in application of Article 48(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal to forward the objections submitted by the representatives to the four individuals proposed as expert witnesses in its final list of declarants in order that they might submit their observations by no later than May 23, 2012. 7. The briefs of May 24 and 25, 2012, whereby Héctor Alfredo Amaya Cristancho, Efraín Acosta Jaramillo, Máximo Duque and Juan Pablo Franco Jiménez, put forward as witnesses by the State, submitted their comments to the objections to their participation in this case. 8. The brief dated May 24, 2012, whereby the representatives addressed the request for a deadline extension submitted by the State and reiterated other arguments on the admissibility of the evidence offered by the State. 9. The brief dated May 29, 2012, whereby the State submitted pleadings with regard to the observations of the representatives on its evidentiary proposals. 10. The note of the Secretariat dated May 31, 2012, whereby the State and the representatives were informed that as they had not been requested nor provided for in the Rules of Procedure, the two prior briefs (supra Having Seen clause 8 and 9) would be brought to the attention of the President in order to weigh their admissibility or pertinent aspects. 11. The Order handed down by the President on June 5, 2012, calling a public hearing and ruling which statements would be given before a notary public (affidavit) and which during the public hearing. 12. The brief dated aforementioned Order. June 7, 2012, whereby the State "partially appealed" the 13. The note from the Secretariat dated June 8, 2012, whereby, following instructions of the President, the representatives and the Commission were given until June 12, 2012, to submit their observations to the State’s final brief. 14. The brief dated June 12, 2012, whereby the Commission and the representatives submitted their comments to the State’s brief of June 7, 2012. 15. The note of the Secretariat of June 14m 2012, wherein the parties were informed that the appeal filed by the State was reported to the plenary of the Court and that, following instructions by it, the Tribunal had decided to dismiss it. Moreover, the parties were informed of the decision of the Plenary in order for them to be aware of it with sufficient time, in account that the date of the public hearing was nearing, thereby noting that legal notice of the respective Order would be provided to the parties during the Regular Period of Sessions, prior to the celebration of the mentioned hearing. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. The decisions of the President that are not simply procedural in nature can be appealed before the Court, pursuant to Article 31(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal2 (hereinafter "the Rules of Procedure"). 2. The offering and admission of evidence, as well as the calling of alleged victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, is regulated by Articles 35(1)(f), 40(2)(c), 41(1)(c), 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52(3), 57, and 58 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.  3. The State partially appealed the Order of 5 June 2012, issued by the President. The State argues, inter alia, that the Court has the practice of “generating procedural spaces so the parties may correct errors, a situation that did not occur in this case, where on the contrary, 2 Rules of Procedure passed in the LXXXV Regular Period of Sessions held from November 16 to 28, 2009. 2