that it will make the necessary modifications in order to reflect the previous considerations. Based on the foregoing, the President deems pertinent to admit the expert opinion of Ernesto Villanueva Villanueva, proposed by the Inter-American Commission, and recalls that the value of said opinion shall be assessed in time fashion, within the context of the existing body of evidence and sound judgment. The object and receipt of said testimony shall be defined in the operative paragraphs of this Order (infra Operative Paragraph 1). B. Items of evidence offered by the Commission's request to make questions representatives and 12. The representatives of the alleged victims offered, in the definitive lists, the statements of Wendy Santizo Méndez, Ismael Salanic, Efraín García, Natalia Gálvez, Carla Alvarado and Froilana Armira, as well as the expert opinions of Katherine Temple Doyle, Carlos Martin Beristain, Carlos Castresana Fernández, Bernardo R. Morales Figueroa, Silvio René Gramajo Valdés and Alejandro Valencia Villa. By means of subsequent briefs, they proposed the testimony of Fredy Peccerelli (supra Having Seen clauses 11 and 12). In this respect, the following issues shall be addressed: a) withdrawal of an expert witness designation and of a request for evidence to the State; b) modifications in the objects of the statements of the alleged victims and expert witnesses; c) Commission's request to interrogate; and d) admission of Mr. Peccerelli as witness. 13. In the first place, the representatives did not include, in their definitive lists, an expert witness to be identified, proposed in the brief of pleadings and motions (supra Having Seen clause 2). In this respect, the Presidency notes that, according to article 46.1 of the Rules of Procedure, the appropriate procedural moment for the representatives to confirm or retract offers of evidence submitted in the brief of pleadings and motions is the definitive list requested by the Tribunal. Therefore, by not confirming, in the definitive list, the expert opinion indicated, expert’s designation was withdrawn by the representatives at the appropriate procedural moment. Moreover, the representatives also withdrew, in their definitive list, the request for the Court to order the State to present a witness (supra Having Seen clause 2). The President takes note of said withdrawals. 14. In the second place, the representatives offered, in their definitive list, the statement of six alleged victims, modifying the initial object of such statements. In the case of Wendy Santizo Mendez, they had initially pointed out that the object of her statement would be “her experience, her survival in relation to the torture and rape”, and they later indicated that it would refer to "the circumstances of the disappearance of her mother, [...] and her rape, torture and abduction, the impact of these violations on her and her family, and the fight against impunity, including her leadership in an organization made up of children of disappeared parents”. In the case of Ismael Salanic, Efraín García, Natalia Gálvez, Carla Alvarado and Froilana Armira, they pointed out, at first, that their statements would respectively refer to "the fight from the beginning of GAM [Grupo de Apoyo Mutuo] to the present", "the consequences of the disappearance of his daughter”, “her experience [and] the fight of her husband at GAM in order to find their son", "[her] personal experience, her mother's experience and the tireless fight of her grandmother" and "the consequences of the disappearance of her two brothers, the destruction of her family, the internal migration and the cultural implications". In the definitive list, the representatives unified the phrasing of the objects under the following common title: “the way in which the facts occurred before, during and after the disappearance of [their] relatives, the impact of the disappearance on [them] and their family, and their fight against impunity”. 15. This Presidency considers that, even though the representatives made some 5