observations they deem pertinent within the time limit indicated in this Order (infra operative paragraph 4). The evidentiary value of said statements shall be determined by the Tribunal in time fashion, which will consider the points of view, if applicable, expressed by the State and the representatives in the exercise of their right to defense. D.2 Statements to be received at the public hearing 24. The proceedings in the instant case are set for the oral trial to start as to the preliminary objection, merits, reparations and legal costs, for which the President deems pertinent to convene a public hearing in order to receive the statements of Jesús Tecú Osorio and Carlos Chen Osorio, alleged victims and the expert opinion of Michael Paul Hermann Mörth, all of them proposed by the representatives, and the expert opinion of Rosalina Tuyuc Velásquez, proposed by the Inter-American Commission. E. Final oral and written arguments and observations 25. Once the alleged victims and expert witness have rendered their statements, the representatives and the State may present before the Tribunal their final oral arguments regarding the preliminary objection, merits, and possible reparations and legal costs in the instant case. As established in article 51.8 of the Rules of Procedure, once the oral arguments have concluded, the Commission shall present its final oral observations. 26. According to article 56 of the Rules of Procedure, the alleged victims or their representatives, the State and the Commission may present their final written arguments and final written observations, respectively, in relation to the preliminary objection, merits and possible reparations and legal costs, within the term established in Operative Paragraph twelve of this Order. THEREFORE: THE PRESIDENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Pursuant to Articles 24.1 and 25.2 of the Statute of the Court and Articles 4, 15.1, 26.1, 31.2, 35.1, 40.2, 41.1, 45, 46, 50 to 56, and 60 of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal, DECIDES: 1. To require, based on the reasons established in this Order (supra Considering clause 22), according to the principle of procedural economy and in exercise of the 8