4 * * * 8. That it is essential that the Court ensure, for the resolution of the issues at stake, the determination of the truth and the most complete presentation of facts and arguments by the parties, guaranteeing both the right of defense of the parties and the possibility of adequately addressing all of the cases before the Tribunal. Consequently, it is necessary to receive the greatest possible number of declarations of alleged victims, testimonies and expert reports through sworn written statements (affidavits), and to summon to public hearings only those alleged victims, witnesses and expert witnesses whose oral declaration is truly indispensable, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the object of the declarations, testimonies and expert reports in question. 9. That on the basis of the foregoing considerations and Article 50(3) of the Rules of Procedure, this Presidency deems it fitting to receive by affidavit the declaration of Mr. Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan, proposed by the Commission and the representatives; the expert reports of Prof. Nigel Eastman and Edward Fitzgerald QC, proposed by the representatives, and the expert report of Mr. Anthony V. Grant, proposed by the State (supra Considering para. 6). This Presidency observes that the parties had offered all of the above-mentioned declarations through sworn written statements (affidavits). The object of their declarations will be determined in the operative paragraphs of the present Order (infra Operative Paragraph 1). 10. That the State offered the expert testimony of Dr. Brian MacLachlan and of Mr. Anthony Blackman to be rendered before the Court during the public hearing in the present case or through a sworn written statement (affidavit), or both. However, taking into account the proposed object of their expert reports3, as well as the circumstances of this case, and for reasons of judicial expediency, this Presidency does not deem it indispensible to receive Dr. Brian MacLachlan’s or Mr. Anthony Blackman’s expert reports orally during the public hearing, but rather through sworn written statements (affidavit). This Presidency shall determine the object of their expert reports in the Operative Paragraphs of the present Order (infra Operative Paragraph 1). 11. That the representatives offered the expert testimony of Dr. Timothy Green to be rendered before the Court during the public hearing in the present case. However, taking into account the proposed object of his expert report4, as well as the circumstances of this case, and for reasons of judicial expediency, this Presidency does not deem it indispensible to receive Dr. Timothy Green’s expert report orally during the public hearing, but rather through a sworn written statement (affidavit). This Presidency shall determine the object of his expert report in the Operative Paragraphs of the present Order (infra Operative Paragraph 1). 12. That in conformity with the right of defense and the adversarial principle, as well as Article 50(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the declaration of the alleged victim and the expert reports received through sworn statements (affidavits) shall be transmitted to the other 3 The State defined the object of Dr. Brian MacLachlan´s expert report as “the processes and facilities related to the Psychiatric Hospital and psychiatric assessment in criminal cases, [and] the ethical and professional obligations of psychiatrists.” The State defined the object of Mr. Anthony Blackman’s expert report as “the law and procedure related to the defence of diminished responsibility.” 4 The representatives defined the object of Dr. Timothy Green´s expert report as “the psychological examination he carried out on the alleged victim and his subsequent psychology report concerning the alleged victim’s mental state with regard to defenses at trial and the imposition of the death sentence.”