changes in the objects of the statements of the alleged victims, said modifications do not affect the essential content thereof. Moreover, the changes were not objected by the State or the Commission. Based on the foregoing, it is pertinent to admit the statements of Wendy Santizo Méndez, Ismael Salanic, Efraín García, Natalia Gálvez, Carla Alvarado and Froilana Armira. Likewise, the Court notes modifications in the objects of the statements of Katherine Temple Doyle and Carlos Castresana Fernández. However, such modifications are minor and they do not alter the contents thereof, for which it is pertinent to admit them. The Court shall assess such statements and expert opinions in time fashion, within the context of the existing body of evidence and on the basis of sound judgment. The object and receipt of said statements shall be defined in the operative paragraphs of this Order (infra Operative Paragraphs 1and 5). 16. As to the Inter-American Commission’s request to interrogate expert witness Doyle, the Presidency recalls that, according to article 52.3 of the Rules of Procedure, said body may interrogate, at the hearing, expert witnesses proposed by the other parties when the Inter-American public order of human rights is affected in a significant manner and the statement in question regards a topic included in the statement of an expert witness offered by the Commission. In this respect, even though the opinion of expert witness Doyle relates to the issue of access to information contained, in part, in the expert opinion of Mr. Villanueva Villanueva, the object of the expert opinion of the former specifically refers to the instant case and Guatemala, for which it is not related to issues of the InterAmerican public order. Therefore, it is not appropriate to admit the request made by the Inter-American Commission. 17. Lastly, the representatives, after forwarding their definitive list, offered Mr. Peccerelli as witness in order for him to refer to alleged supervening facts. Given that it is a testimony regarding a fact that had occurred after the submission of the brief of pleadings and motions and considering that the State indicated that it had no objection thereto (supra Having Seen clauses 11, 12 and 14), based on Article 57.2, the Court admits said testimony. The object and receipt of said testimony shall be defined in the operative paragraphs of this Order (infra Operative Paragraph 1). C. Items of evidence offered by the State and Commission's request to interrogate 18. The State proposed Manuel Giovanni Vásquez Vicente and Marco Tulio Álvarez Bobadilla to be summoned to the hearing, who were, at first, offered as expert witnesses and later on, as “declarants”. Regarding the first of them, Guatemala indicated that the object of his statement would refer to “the proceedings carried out by the State in order to investigate, prosecute and punish the responsible for the forced disappearance of the 26 disappeared persons and the search for their mortal remains, as well as the investigation into the illegal detention and subsequent execution of Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz and the illegal detention, torture and rape of Wendy Santizo Mendez”. As to the second one, it indicated that the object of his statement would deal with "the actions taken by the State [...] through the Secretariat for Peace in relation to the declassification of state files that contribute to the historical clarification; the dissemination and publication of Diario Militar; and the expert opinions rendered in support of the investigations of the Public Prosecutor's Office, addressed to promote [the] clarification of the cases involving human rights violations committed during the internal armed conflict". In the definitive list, Guatemala slightly changed the first part of the object of this last statement and eliminated a word from the object of the first statement. The rest of the objects are identical to the ones initially offered. 6