the Court’s administrative and financial autonomy, which is not attached to any function of the State.” 32. The expert witness Ávila responded to the Commission’s objection by stating that “an employment relationship is not based on belonging to a department of the State in the case of the Constitutional Court, since on human rights matters the defense or conviction does not relate to that institution, but to the State as a whole.” 33. Regarding the disqualification of these expert witnesses, this Presidency emphasizes that the admissibility or not of an objection is a procedural matter that essentially concerns the State and the representatives as opposing parties. Consequently, in the specific context of this case, it is not possible to rule on this request by the Commission. E) Request by the Commission to submit questions to expert witnesses offered by the representatives and by the State 34. In its observations to the definitive lists, the Commission requested “a verbal or written opportunity to submit questions to the expert witnesses Rafael Oyarte and Alejandro Ponce Villacís, proposed by the representatives, [as well as to expert witness] Luis Ávila Linzan, offered by the State,” whose statements “are related both to the inter-American public order and to the subject matter of the expert opinion offered by the Inter-American Commission.” 35. In particular, the Commission pointed out that “the expert opinion of [Mr.] Ponce Villacís, regarding international standards on the independence of the Judiciary is directly related to the issues of judicial guarantees and judicial protection in the proceedings for the dismissal of judges, which [Mr.] Despouy will address in his expert opinion.” The Commission further stated that “the expert opinion of Mr. Oyarte on the current regulatory framework in Ecuador, and the expert opinion of Mr. Ávila Linzan on the institutional development of the country’s Constitutional Court, complement the expert opinion rendered by Dr. Despouy on international standards and the situation of High Court judges, through their application to the specific case of the legalinstitutional system of a particular State.” 36. With regard to the Commission’s request, the President recalls the provisions of the Rules of Procedure regarding the reception of statements proposed by the Commission, and also in relation to its authority to interrogate the deponents offered by the other parties.5 In particular, it is pertinent to recall Article 50(5) of the Rules of Procedure which states that “… alleged victims or their representatives, the respondent State and, if applicable, the petitioning State, may formulate questions in writing for the deponents offered by the opposing party and, if applicable, by the Commission, who have been summoned by the Court to render their statements through affidavits.” This provision should be read in conjunction with Article 52(3) of the Rules, which allows the Commission to interrogate expert witnesses presented by the parties, “if authorized by the Court upon receiving a well-founded request therefor, when the inter-American public order of human rights is affected in a significant manner and the statement in question concerns a topic included in the statement of an                                                              5 Cf. Case of González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic, Considering para. 48, and Case Luna López v. Honduras. Order of the President of the Court of December 20, of 2012, Considering para. 20. 9