cases in which human rights defenders have been victims of human rights violations [and] the need to establish standards on the relationship between the exercise of the defense of human rights through political participation.” 6. The representatives indicated that they had no observations to make regarding the content of the aforementioned definitive lists. For its part, the State did not submit observations to the offer of the Commission. 7. With respect to the link between the object of the expert opinion of Mr. Michael Reed-Hurtado and the inter-American public order, the President takes note of the Commission’s observations (supra Considering para. 4) and deems it appropriate to admit the expert opinion. The analysis of the State’s obligations in relation to the duty of protection and due diligence and efficacy in investigating cases where human rights defenders are affected in the exercise of their profession, may indeed have an impact on situations that occur in other States Parties to the Convention. Therefore, the object of this expert opinion is a matter that affects the inter-American public order in a significant manner and transcends the specific facts of this case and the specific interest of the parties in litigation. 8. Also, regarding the link between the object of the expert opinion of Mr. Frank la Rue and the inter-American public order, the President considers that, although it is true that the object of that expert opinion is of great importance to the subject of human rights, the matter under consideration is within the purview, jurisdiction and authority of the Court, and has even been addressed in its own case law. Therefore, in this case, the President does not consider the expert opinion proposed to be essential and consequently rejects the proposal of the Commission. 9. The President recalls that the value of said expert opinion shall be assessed in due course, within the context of the body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. Moreover, the object of that expert opinion and the means by which it will be provided shall be determined in the operative section of this Order (infra Operative para. 1). B. Statements of alleged victims, testimonial evidence, expert evidence and request for the inclusion of the expert opinion offered by the representatives 10. In this case, the representatives offered seven testimonies of alleged victims and one witness statement from the following persons: César Luna Valle2, Rosa Margarita Valle Hernández3, Carlos Luna Valle4, Mariana Luna Valle5, Allan Luna Valle6, 2 The testimony of alleged victim Cesar Luna Valle, son of Carlos Antonio Luna López, refers to the facts of the case, the domestic proceedings undertaken to obtain justice, the threats received during this process and the damage and consequences he and his family suffered. 3 The testimony of the alleged victim Rosa Margarita Valle Hernández, wife of Carlos Antonio Luna López, refers to the facts of the case, the threats received and the damage and consequences that she and her family suffered as a result of her death of her husband Carlos Antonio Luna López. 4 The testimony of the alleged victim Carlos Luna Valle, son of Carlos Antonio Luna López, refers to the facts of the case, the domestic proceedings undertaken to obtain justice, the threats received during this process and the damage and consequences that he and his family suffered. 5 The testimony of the alleged victim Mariana Luna Valle, daughter of Carlos Antonio Luna López, refers to the facts of the case and the damage and consequences that he and his family suffered. 3