7 to the application. It, however, opposed as time-barred the proposal of new experts to report on new topics, and, moreover, argued that there were grounds for the disqualification of one of them and, that the topics indicated were not germane to the instant Case. 31. On September 14, 1997, the President decided 1. To reject the offer of Mr. Alfonso Novales-Aguirre as an expert in this case, on the grounds of his disqualification. 2. To reject the offer of Mr. Ramiro de León-Carpio as an expert in this case, as timebarred. 3. To accept the offer of Mr. José Francisco de Mata-Vela, Mr. Eduardo Mayora-Alvarado and Mr. Carlos Enrique Luna-Villacorta as experts in this case to report on the topics indicated by the State in its answer to the application. 32. On September 12, 1997, the Inter-American Commission submitted its final list of witnesses and experts who could be delivering their testimony and reports before the Court. In that communication, the Commission offered Olga Molina and Robert C. Bux, to replace Roberto Lemus and Robert Kirschner, respectively, as experts witnnesses at the public hearings called by the Court to hear the merits of the instant case. On September 14, 1998, the Secretariat transmitted a copy of the Commission’s brief to the State, and informed the State that it had until September 17, 1997 to submit its comments. 33. On September 18, 1997, the President decided "[t]o accept the offer of Ms. Olga Molina and Mr. Robert Bux as expert witnesses in this case." On September 22, 1997, the State appealed the President’s decision and objected to the experts accepted therein. On September 23, 1997, the Court, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Article 49(4) of its Rules of Procedure, decided "[t]o hear the opinions of expert witnesses Olga Molina and Robert Bux and to evaluate them at a later date." 34. On September 16, 1997, the State objected to experts Mr. Ken Anderson and Ms. Anne Manuel proposed by the Commission on the grounds that they lacked the necessary impartiality, since they belonged to Human Rights Watch/Americas, an organization designated by the Commission as its Assistant in the instant case. On the same day the President decided "[t]o disallow, as time-barred, the objection to Mr. Ken Anderson raised by the State of Guatemala" and did not rule on the objection to Ms. Anne Manuel, because the Commission had not included her in the final list of experts to appear before the Court (supra, para. 32). 35. On September 20, 1997, the Commission submitted a new list of witnesses and experts to appear at the hearings to be held by the Court on the merits of this case. In the list, it proposed witness Oscar Humberto Vásquez, to replace Mr. Marvin Vásquez, and Ms. Jean-Marie Simon, who had been proposed in the brief containing the application but had not been included in the final list of witnesses and experts originally submitted by the Commission (supra, para. 32). At the meeting of the Court with the parties on September 22, 1997, the Agent of the State stated that, in order to expedite the hearings, he would not object to those witnesses. On the same day the Court decided to accept the offer of Mr. Vásquez and Ms. Simon to testify. 36. On September 22, 1997, the State submitted to the Court 13 briefs containing a total of 38 sets of documents which, in its opinion, constituted supervening events and which it considered appropriate to place before the Tribunal. On September 24, after studying the content of those sets of documents, the Court decided to refer eight of them to the Inter-American Commission, which it requested to formulate its