without any warning whatsoever, the Court asked the State for the final list of declarants and only referred to the matter of the failure to act within the time period granted due to the observations presented in that sense by the Commission and the representatives of the alleged victims.” The State argued that said alleged practice “to overcome errors or weaknesses in the evidentiary offering” is to the benefit of “the purpose of the proceedings.” As such, it argued that in this case the Court stepped away from said practice and that, upon having requested the final list of declarants from the State, the Presidency “led it to understand that it was making such a request because the requirements and suppositions described in Article 46(1) of the Rules of Procedure had been complied with,” a list that, the State argues it forwarded “in good faith and responding to the Court’s request.” The State also argued that the Court ruled on the alleged failure to act within the time period granted without giving it the opportunity to refer to this matter, thus it did it “on its own initiative”. Finally, it argues that, “without trying to free itself of its burden to propose and forward the evidence in a timely manner, the State considers that the mentioned decision violates due process, especially its right to a defense and equality of arms,” and therefore it requests that all expert opinions proposed be admitted and that, in a subsidiary manner and in application of Article 58(a) of the Rules of Procedure the Court hear the expert opinions ex officio.  4. The Commission stated that, pursuant to the practice of the Court and its Rules of Procedure, the request for the final list of declarants does not imply acceptance of the expert opinions or testimonies offered by the parties, since it only seeks for the parties to confirm or desist from the offering, opening an adversarial space for both parties in which they may present observations or objections. Also, it noted that the requirements for the offering of evidence is clearly established in the Rules of Procedure, which protects due process and adversary nature between the parties, which is known by the State in its permanent litigation […] before the Court and was not complied with by the State, as verified in the President’s Order. It stated that given that the State indicated in its answer that it would appoint experts “as soon as possible,” it can be validly inferred that the State was fully aware of its regulatory obligation to appoint the experts within a short period of time and not months later, thus it is understandable that the Court did not consider it necessary to reiterate said requirement from the Rules of Procedure. Additionally, regarding the manner in which the State offered said evidence, subjecting the appointment of the experts to a preliminary determination by the Court on its appropriateness and to the granting of a “reasonable period of time” for it, the Commission considered that the State’s mechanism for the appointing of its experts is not established in the Rules of Procedure, since it would assume a determination regarding the merits of the appropriateness of the evidence prior to complying with the minimum requirements for its admissibility. Since it is an offer in violation of the Rules of Procedure, it did not correspond to the Court to carry out requests that may suggest a modification to a procedural strategy of a particular party. The Commission concluded that the plenary of the Court should not revise the Order issued by the President. 5. The representatives also argued that the State’s notorious negligence in this case should not be endured by the representatives and even less so by the Tribunal, which has offered all guarantees of the due process. The State wants to assert a position contrary to the Court’s practice regarding the inadmissibility of time-barred evidence, which is contrary to reality, since it has had multiple regulatory opportunities to exercise its defense and present the arguments it considered necessary. They recalled that the possibility to file an appeal should not fall upon ineffective and negligent actions attributable to their own actions, thus the President’s Order is in accordance with the State’s procedural behavior. The State’s argument is “disrespectful” since the request for the final lists of deponents does not suggest or imply the admissibility of the evidence offered in a time-barred manner. Even though the Tribunal has generated procedural opportunities to correct some of the parties’ errors in other cases, it has done so in totally different circumstances and in cases in which the negligence of the party requesting the expert opinions was not so notorious. They concluded that the State’s argument suggesting that the Court must apply practices regarding new non-regulatory procedural 3