thorough, impartial and effective investigation, especially when State agents are involved and there is also a cover-up by the authorities themselves.” 9. The representatives made no objection to the offer of this expert opinion. Likewise, in its answer brief, the State argued that “as a clear reflection of the willingness already shown […], it consider [ed] that the rendering [of the expert opinion offered by the Commission] would be of interest, inasmuch as the proposal comes from the very Organ which, after examining the case, found irregularities in the investigation of the case and a failure to produce conclusive results and identify those responsible.” 10. The President considers that the expert opinion offered by the Inter-American Commission refers to judicial matters comprehensively addressed by the Court in its case law. 5 The Commission did not explain how the expert opinion offered could provide new elements or develop the criteria already established by this Court regarding standards for the investigation of the alleged violent death of a person and the supposed cover-up by the authorities. Inasmuch as this expert opinion does not refer to matters that “significantly affect the inter-American public order”, the exceptional circumstances established in the Rules do not exist to allow the expert statement proposed by the Commission. 11. Moreover, the Inter-American Commission requested an opportunity to question Ignacio Cano, Luis María Chichizola, María Victoria Pita, Alberto Binder, Ricardo Favarotto and Gabriel Eduardo Pérez Barberá, expert witnesses proposed by the representatives, considering that some aspects of the objects of their expert opinions are related to the object of the expert opinion of Mr. Pedro Díaz, offered by the Inter-American Commission. In this regard, given that the offer of this last expert opinion is being rejected (supra Considering para. 10), the Commission’s request is not admissible. B. Expert evidence offered by the representatives 12. In its answer brief, the State challenged the relevance of the ten expert opinions offered by the representatives, “according [to] Articles 48 and 48(2) of the Rules of the Court”, inasmuch as these would seek “[…] to provide a general overview, [which] would impair the scope and nature of the specific facts surrounding the Gutiérrez Case.” Subsequently the State, when presenting its observations to the definitive list of deponents submitted by the representatives, did not reiterate its objection to the relevance of the totality of the expert evidence offered by the representatives (supra Having Seen 10). In that brief the State merely noted a “certain overlap in the points of expertise that various experts are being asked to issue an opinion.” Therefore, “in order to avoid procedural delays and an unnecessary increase in the costs of the proceeding,” the State considered that the representatives should be asked to “unify the questions on which the expert witnesses should issue an opinion.” 13. According to Article 46(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the proper procedural moment for submitting observations to the expert evidence offered by the parties after the definitive list of deponents has been presented. In this regard, the President notes that the 5 For example, the cases of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196; González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205; Case of the Massacre of Dos Erres Vs. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, and Massacres of El Mozote and Surrounding Areas v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No. 252.