1. The offering and admission of evidence, as well as the convocation of alleged victims, witnesses and expert witnesses are governed by articles 35.1.f, 40.2.c, 41.1.c, 46, 47, 50, and 57 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. 2. The testimonial and expert evidence was offered by the parties in time fashion, except for the testimonial evidence under the responsibility of Mrs. Maria Osorio Chen, which was offered by the representatives upon the presentation of their definitive list of declarants (supra Having Seen clause 8). 3. In the definitive list, the representatives offered, for the first time, a statement to be rendered by Maria Osorio Chen, alleged victim and requested the Court, in case said offering was not admitted, to replace the offering of the statement to be rendered by Antonia Osorio Sánchez, alleged victim, made in the brief of pleadings and motions, by the statement of Mrs. Maria Osorio Chen. Nor the offering or its replacement was objected by the Commission or the State. 4. Upon confirming the only testimony offered by the State in its brief of answer, it pointed out that Mr. Manuel Geovanni Vásquez Vicente, person who shall render such a statement, “had been proposed as Deputy Prosecutor of the Unit of Special Cases regarding the Internal Armed Conflict of the Human Rights Section of the Office of the Prosecutor”, but that on March 6, 2012, the Office of the Prosecutor had informed that said person was reassigned to another office. Therefore, the State indicated that Mr. Vásquez Vicente would render his statement about the actions taken related to the investigation, proceeding and punishment in the instant case, as it was offered in the brief of answer, but up to December 2011, in view of the situation previously mentioned. Nor the Commission or the representatives objected to the time frame of the object of said statement. 5. The Court ensured the parties the right to defense regarding the evidence offered in their brief submitting the case, brief of pleadings and motions and brief of answer, as well as in their definitive lists (supra Having Seen clauses 9 and 11). 6. Nor the Inter-American Commission or the representatives and the State objected to the definitive lists, respectively. The State only referred to the manner in which the testimonies and expert opinions offered by the representatives should be rendered, an issue that falls upon the President to determine, but it did not object to the relevance of said items of evidence or the persons proposed to such end. 7. The President considers convenient to gather the evidence offered by the representatives and the State which was not objected, in order for the Tribunal to assess it in time fashion, within the context of the existing body of evidence and based on sound judgment. This Presidency shall define the object of these statements and the manner in which they shall be received in this Order (infra operative paragraphs 1 and 5). 8. In this Order, the following aspects shall be addressed: a) expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission; b) the Inter-American Commission's request to interrogate one of the expert witnesses offered by the representatives; c) representatives' request for an interpreter in relation to the statements of the alleged victims; d) manner of the statements of the alleged victims and witness, and expert opinions, and e) arguments and final written and oral observations. 3