14. With respect to the request to include the expert opinion rendered by the lawyer Clarisa Vega in the Case of Jeannette Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, having regard to the principles of procedural economy and celerity, and considering that this expert opinion could prove useful in resolving this case, 13 the President deems it appropriate to include the recording of the expert opinion of Mrs. Clarisa Vega rendered at a public hearing in the body of evidence of this case. Furthermore, the documentation presented before this Court by expert witness Clarisa Vega, in support of her expert opinion, will also be included in the case file. C. Statements offered by the State 15. In its answer brief the State offered, in the first place, the statement of Mr. Adrián Octavio Rosales, a prosecutor at the Attorney General’s Office of Honduras. This statement refers to the visit he received from Carlos Antonio Luna López and José Ángel Rosa Hernández; the way in which criminal trials were conducted under the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1984; and the progress made during his tenure at the Attorney General’s Office in investigating the criminal liability of those involved in the death of Mr. Carlos Antonio Luna López. 16. In the second place, the State offered the testimony of Mr. Nery Velásquez, Assistant Human Rights Commission. That statement refers to the way in which the National Human Rights Commission (hereinafter “CONADEH”), provides assistance and adopts measures of protection in favor of citizens at risk in the exercise of their human rights; the way in which criminal trials were conducted under the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1984; and the indication of whether Mr. Carlos Antonio Luna López visited the offices of CONADEH to file a complaint or request protection because he felt his life was threatened. These statements were ratified in the definitive list of deponents submitted to the Court. 17. The Inter-American Commission indicated that from the briefs submitted by the State it is not clear in which capacity it offered the statements of Adrian Octavio Rosales and Nery Velásquez. Given their object, the Commission considered that the statement of Adrián Octavio Rosales, as a prosecutor who was directly involved in the case, is testimonial; meanwhile, the statement of Nery Velásquez, having the object of describing the functioning of a State institution in relation to the specific situation of human rights defenders, has the character of an expert opinion. In this regard, the Commission requested the opportunity to question Nery Velásquez, either at a hearing or in writing, given that the object of his statement is directly related to the expert opinion of Mr. Michael Reed-Hurtado, offered by the Commission. For their part, the representatives said they had no observations to make regarding the evidence offered by the State. 18. The President takes note of the deponents confirmed in the definitive list of the State and considers it appropriate to receive the statements of Messrs. Adrián Octavio Rosales and Nery Velásquez. The value of the statements proposed by the State shall be assessed in due course, within the context of the body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. The object and means by which the expert opinion will be rendered is specified in the operative section of this Order (infra Operative paras. 1 and 5). 13 Cf. Case García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Order of the President of the Court of March 18, 2005, Considering paragraphs 7 to 10. 5