to investigate in a serious and diligent manner, including the follow-up of logical lines of investigations” and c) Ernesto Villanueva Villanueva, who shall refer to “the access to public information in Guatemala, especially the information contained in the files of the intelligence service, the Armed Forces and the Police, historically speaking and as from the enactment of the 2008 Act on Access to Public Information, from the perspective of the international law and the international good practices". 8. The State and the representatives did not present objections to the three expert opinions offered by the Inter-American Commission. 9. The Commission considered that the three expert opinions relate to the international public order and that the instant case “is paradigmatic in its different components, both in terms of impunity as well as access to information. In addition, they do not only relate to the rights of the victims but of the society in general". Regarding the expert opinions of Carlos Castresana Fernández and Pedro E. Diaz Romero, it further indicated that “they would start from the international human rights standards applicable to serious situations of impunity and the State’s obligations in terms of investigation and punishment of the responsible for human rights violations in contexts of armed conflict. Those standards go beyond the situation of the victims of the case and may have an impact on the approach of serious situations of impunity in other States of the region". It further alleged that the expert opinion of Carlos Castresana Fernández "will provide the Tribunal with the possibility of identifying the challenges of situations of structural impunity and the way in which States must respond to such challenges". In addition, as to the expert opinion of Ernesto Villanueva Villanueva, it indicated that apart from putting forward the picture of the situation in Guatemala, it shall provide essential elements in terms of international standards on the right to access to information in general, as well as the importance of the access to information regarding human rights matters. Moreover, the expert witness shall provide the Court with the starting points to identify good practices regarding most recent issues existing in several countries of the region, which is the delivery of information related to transitional or post-conflict processes. 10. In relation to two of the expert opinions offered, this Presidency notes that, without detriment to what was indicated by the Commission regarding the possible connection with the international public order, their objects are substantially and specifically limited to the particular situation of Guatemala and the instant case. In fact, while one of them is related to the reality of that country, like the “structural circumstances in Guatemala that foster impunity”, the other expert opinion refers to the specific circumstances “that had contributed to the impunity in the instant case”. Therefore, the President considers that it is not pertinent to admit the expert opinions of Carlos Castresana Fernandez and Pedro E. Diaz Romero offered by the Inter-American Commission. 11. As to the expert opinion of Ernesto Villanueva Villanueva, even though its object, as defined by the Commission, refers to the access to public information in Guatemala, the President deems that the opinion of the expert witness may be useful and pertinent if it is limited to the perspective of the international law and the international good practices regarding access to public information contained in files of the intelligence service, the armed forces and the police based on domestic laws on the access to public information. By limiting its object to such aspect, said expert opinion relates to an issue that may have an impact on phenomena occurring in other States Parties to the Convention and that goes beyond the specific facts of this case and the specific interest of the parties to the case, this is an issue that significantly affects the Inter-American public order. This Presidency shall exercise its authority to define the object of the expert opinion, in such a way 4