arguments and final written observations, respectively, in relation to the merits and possible reparations and legal costs, within the term established in Operative Paragraph thirteen of this Order. F. Actuarial study offered by the State 29. In its brief containing the answer, the State requested the Court to assess “the possibility of conducting an actuarial study by the State […], to provide [the Tribunal with] other relevant factors at the moment of determining a possible compensation in favor of the victims”. 30. The representatives posed a series of questions to the State’s proposal of conducting an actuarial study mentioned. 31. This Presidency deems that said study may be useful in order to determine the possible amount of the financial reparations in the instant case, for which, as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, in accordance with article 58.b of the Rules of Procedure, it decides to admit the proposal made by Guatemala regarding the conduct of the actuarial study. The State must present said report within the term established in operative paragraph two, which shall be transmitted to the representatives and the Commission so that they shall present, together with their final written arguments and observations at the latest, the considerations they deem pertinent. G. Testimonies and expert opinions attached as annexes to the brief of pleadings and motions 32. Together with the brief of pleadings and motions, the representatives attached certain documents included as “testimonial evidence” and “expert evidence”. These annexes were transmitted to the Commission and the State together with the brief of pleadings and motions, and were not objected. 33. Said documents correspond to statements of alleged victims and reports on psychosocial impact of alleged victims’ relatives in the case, prepared by Mr. Carlos Beristain. In this respect, the Presidency recalls that it is the Tribunal or its Presidency who shall decide whether the statement rendered by a person or an expert opinion is pertinent to a case. Moreover, it falls upon the Tribunal or its Presidency to define the object of the statements and expert opinions offered by the parties. Consequently, given that the expert opinions and statements forwarded by the representatives were not requested by the Court or its Presidency and no object was defined in relation to them, the Tribunal considers that said statements and expert opinions are documentary evidence only and, to this end, they shall be assessed in time fashion, within the context of the existing body of evidence and on the basis of sound judgment.5 THEREFORE: THE PRESIDENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, 5 Similarly, see Case of Abrill Alosilla et al V. Peru, Order of the Acting President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 8, 2010; Considering clause twenty-four; Case of Furlan and relatives V. Argentina, Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human rights of January 24, 2012; Considering clause eight. 9