victims, offered by the representatives. The President considers it appropriate to obtain the statements of those persons, given their relationship to the instant case. The Court shall assess their value at the proper procedural moment, within the context of the existing body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. The object of these statements and the manner in which they will be received shall be determined by the President in this Order (infra Operative paragraphs 1 and 5). 5. Furthermore, the President notes that in the brief of pleadings and motions the representatives offered testimonial evidence from journalist Daniel Otero (supra Having Seen 4). However, when submitting their definitive list of deponents, the representatives did not mention that evidence. According to Article of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the proper procedural moment for the representatives to confirm or withdraw the statements offered in the brief of pleadings and motions is in the definitive list requested by the Court 3. Therefore, by not confirming that testimony in their definitive list, the President considers that the representatives tacitly withdrew it. 6. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the following points will be addressed in this Order: a) the expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission and its request to interrogate six expert witnesses offered by the representatives; b) the expert evidence offered by the representatives; c) the manner in which the statements of the alleged victims and the expert opinions shall be rendered, and d) the final oral and written arguments and observations. A. Expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission and request to interrogate six expert witnesses offered by the representatives 7. Article 35(1) (f) of the Rules provides for the “possible appointment of expert witnesses” by the Inter-American Commission, with due justification of the grounds and object of such appointment “when the Inter-American public order of human rights is affected in a significant manner.” The implication of this provision is that the appointment of expert witnesses by the Commission is an exceptional circumstance, subject to that requirement, which is not satisfied by the mere fact that the evidence to be produced is related to an alleged human rights violation. The “Inter-American public order of human rights” must be “affected in a significant manner,” and it is up to the Commission to justify that situation.” 4 8. The Inter-American Commission offered as evidence the expert opinion of Mr. Pedro Díaz who would render a statement on “the duty of the State to provide an effective response not only regarding the violent death of a person, but also regarding the specific duty to investigate evident signs of a cover-up and derailing of investigations carried out by State authorities.” In confirming said offer (supra Having Seen 7), the Commission stated that “the expert opinion offered refers to matters of inter-American public order raised in this case”, which will provide the Inter-American Court “with further elements to develop its case law regarding the State’s obligation to guarantee the right to life by means of a 3 Cf. Case Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 23, 2010, Considering para. 8 , and Case of Castillo González v. Venezuela. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 31, 2012, Considering para. 7. 4 Cf. Case of Pedro Miguel Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 23, 2010, Considering para. 9, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In-vitro Fertilization”) v. Costa Rica. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 6, 2012, Considering para. 24.