1. The offering and admission of evidence, as well as the convocation of alleged victims, witnesses and expert witnesses are governed by articles 35.1.f, 40.2.c, 41.1.c, 46, 50, and 57 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. 2. The Commission offered three expert witnesses as items of evidence; the representatives offered the statements of six alleged victims, a witness and six expert witnesses; and the State offered two declarants. 3. The Court ensured the parties the right to defense regarding the evidence offered in the brief submitting the case, the brief of pleadings and motions and the brief containing the answer, as well as in their definitive lists and those briefs related to alleged new facts. 4. As to the statements offered by the parties, which have not been objected, this President considers it is convenient to take such evidence in order for the Tribunal to assess on it in time fashion and on the basis of the existing body of evidence and sound judgment. This Presidency shall define the object of these statements and the manner in which they shall be received in this Order (infra operative paragraphs 1 and 5). 5. Next, this Presidency shall address the following aspects: a) item of evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission; b) item of evidence offered by the representatives and request of the Inter-American Commission to question; c) item of evidence offered by the State and request of the Inter-American Commission to make questions; d) manner of the statements and expert opinions; e) arguments and final oral and written observations; f) offering of actuarial study by the State and g) testimonies and expert opinions attached as annexes to the brief of pleadings and motions. A. Items of evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission 6. According to the terms of article 35.1.f of the Rules of Procedure, “the possible appointment of expert witnesses” may be made by the Inter-American Commission “when the Inter-American public order of human rights is affected in a significant manner”, the object of which must be adequately founded. This provision means that the appointment of expert witnesses by the Commission is an exceptional opportunity that is subject to a requirement, which is not satisfied by the mere fact that the item of evidence to be received is related to an alleged human rights violation. The “Inter-American public order of human rights must be affected in a significant manner,” and it falls upon the Commission to uphold such a situation.3 7. The Inter-American Commission offered, as evidence, the expert opinions of: a) Carlos Castresana Fernández, who shall render a statement “on the structural circumstances existing in Guatemala that foster impunity in cases like the instant one. Among other aspects, the expert witness shall refer to the clandestine structures of the armed conflict, its infiltration in the institutions and the cooptation of the justice system”; b) Pedro E. Diaz Romero, who shall render a statement about “the circumstances that had fostered impunity in the instant case, by means of the analysis of the investigations carried out at the domestic level and their adaptation to the international human rights standards applicable to the obligation 3 See Case of Pedro Miguel Vera Vera et al V. Ecuador. Order of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of December 23, 2010. Considering clause nine. Case of Pacheco Teruel et al V. Honduras. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2012, Considering clause three. 3