that they had no observations to make. For its part, the State submitted no observations in this regard. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. The offer and admission of evidence, together with the summons of alleged victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, are regulated in Articles 35(1)(f), 40(2)(c), 41(1)(c) 46, 50 and 57 of the Rules of the Court. 2. The Court guaranteed the parties the right of defense in respect of the offers of evidence contained in their briefs submitting the case and of pleadings and motions, as well as in their definitive lists (supra Having Seen 6). 3. In this Order, the President shall consider the following aspects: a) the admissibility of the expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission; b) the admissibility of the statements of the alleged victims, testimonial evidence, expert evidence and the request to include the expert opinion offered by the representatives; c) the admissibility of the statements offered by the State; d) the request by the Commission to formulate questions to the expert witnesses offered by the representatives and the State; e) the manner in which the statements and expert opinions shall be rendered f) the final oral and written arguments and observations. A. Expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission 4. Article 35(1) (f) of the Rules provides for the “possible appointment of expert witnesses” by the Inter-American Commission, with due justification of the grounds and object of such appointment “when the Inter-American public order of human rights is affected in a significant manner.” The implication of this provision is that the appointment of expert witnesses by the Commission is an exceptional circumstance, subject to that requirement, which is not satisfied by the mere fact that the evidence to be produced is related to an alleged human rights violation. The “Inter-American public order of human rights” must be “affected in a significant manner,” and it is up to the Commission to justify that situation.”1 5. In this case, the Commission offered the expert opinions of Messrs. Michael Reed-Hurtado and Frank la Rue. The first expert opinion offered refers to “international standards regarding the State’s duty to provide protection in cases where human rights defenders are threatened, as well as the duty to combat the pattern of impunity of the actions that affect them, through the adoption of investigative protocols that take into account the risks inherent to the work of defending human rights.” The second expert opinion offered refers to “the link between exercising the defense of human rights and the right to political participation, as well as the effects caused by attacks on defenders who carry out or seek to carry out their work of promoting and protecting human rights from a public position” (supra Having Seen 1). In its definitive list, the Commission pointed out that the expert opinions proposed refer to the matters of inter-American public order raised by this case in relation to “the duty of States to provide protection for human rights defenders […], the specific duty to investigate 1 Case of Pedro Miguel Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 23, 2010, Considering paragraph 9, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In-vitro Fertilization”) v. Costa Rica. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 6, 2012, Considering paragraph 24. 2