expert witness offered by the Commission.” Thus, it is up to the Commission to demonstrate, in each case, the connection both with the inter-American public order and with the subject matter of the expert opinion it has offered, so that the Court or its President may consider the request in due course, and, if appropriate, authorize the Commission to ask its questions.6 37. The President notes that the Commission argued that two “matters” link “part of the proposed objects” of the expert opinions offered by the State and the representatives with the expert opinion it has offered and with issues related to the inter-American public order in this case, namely: i) international standards on the independence of the Judiciary, and ii) international standards and the situation of High Court judges, through their application to the specific case of the legal-institutional system of a particular State. 38. Regarding the aspects of the links described and alleged by the Commission, the President recalls that it previously considered that the object of Mr. Despouy’s expert opinion concerns the inter-American public order because it is related to the State’s obligations stemming from the guarantee of independence of the Judiciary (supra Considering para. 16). The President considers that there is a coincidence between the object of the expert opinion offered by the Commission and a part of the objects of the expert opinions offered by the State and by the representatives regarding which the Commission requested an opportunity to submit questions. 39. Therefore, pursuant to Articles 50(5) and 52(3) of the Rules, the President considers it appropriate to grant the Commission an opportunity to submit questions for the expert witnesses Ponce and Ávila, specifically on matters related to the interAmerican public order. As to its petition to interrogate Mr. Oyarte, given that the challenge presented was accepted by the State, it is not appropriate to analyze this request. F) Manner in which the statements and expert opinions shall be received 40. It is necessary to ensure the most complete presentation of the facts and arguments by the parties, insofar as these are pertinent to resolving the matters in dispute, guaranteeing both the right of the parties to defend their respective positions and the Court’s possibility of adequately examining the cases submitted to its consideration, bearing in mind that their number has grown considerably and is increasing constantly. It is also necessary to guarantee a reasonable term in the length of the proceeding, as required for effective access to justice. Accordingly, it is essential to receive the greatest possible number of testimonies and expert opinions through affidavits, and that the Court hear those alleged victims, witnesses and expert witnesses whose direct testimony is truly indispensable at a public hearing, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the object of the testimonies and expert opinions. 1. Statements and expert opinions to be rendered by affidavit                                                              6 Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of April 14, 2011, Considering para. 25, and Case of Quintana Coello et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of December 20, 2012, Considering para. 37. 10