proceedings unrelated to the instant case (Mendoza Prisons).”4 The State did not contest the expert opinion of Liliana Gimol Pinto, also offered by the representative. The President finds that the objections raised by the State are related to the arguments of some of the preliminary objections filed in the answering brief (supra having seen paragraph 8).5 In this regard, and since the Court has not ruled on these preliminary objections, without prejudging the merits of the case, the President finds it pertinent to receive the expert opinions of Sofía Tiscornia and Laura Dolores Sobredo. The Court will determine their admissibility and probative value on the appropriate procedural occasion. Furthermore, since neither the Inter-American Commission nor the State presented observations on the expert evidence of Lilian Gimol Pinto, the Court deems it pertinent to receive this expert opinion considering it useful for deciding this case. The purpose of the three expert opinions offered by the representative and the method of receiving them are determined in the operative paragraphs of this Order (infra operative paragraphs 1 and 5). C. Request of the Inter-American Commission to question one of the experts offered by the representative 15. The Commission asked for “the opportunity to pose questions, either orally or in writing, as relevant and reasonable, to the expert witness [Liliana] Gimol Pinto, offered by the representative, whose opinion is related to both inter-American public order and the matter to be dealt with by one of the expert opinions offered by the Inter-American Commission” (supra having seen paragraph 14). In this regard, it indicated that the expert opinion to be provided by “Miguel Cillero [Bruñol, offered by the Commission], is directly related to the first part of the expert opinion of [Liliana] Gimol Pinto, […] because the said purpose includes the ‘the standards of international human rights law for juvenile criminal justice.’” The Commission based its request on the “importance of permitting interrelated expert opinions to offer a variety of perspectives […] on the issues they are intended to develop, in order to increase the information available to the Court when it decides the instant case.”                                                              4 The expert opinion of Laura Dolores Sobredo was offered so that she would refer to: “the destructive effects and the impact on mental health related to the condition of life imprisonment to which Lucas Matías Mendoza, César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez and Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal have been subjected.” In addition, about “the effects on the mental health, if any, of the said situation on the families of those previously mentioned and on the next of kin of Ricardo David Videla Fernández. The specialist will also provide information on the characteristics of the emotional development of the adolescents, particularly in relation to the progressive acquisition of a sense of responsibility, the differentiated impact that prison produces on children, as well as the different consequences that a prolonged period of confinement generates on mental health, taking into special consideration their possibility of developing their persona and realizing their life project.” Lastly, the expert opinion was offered so that Ms. Sobredo could refer to “the recommended therapies to provide the victims with a process of rehabilitation of their mental health that enables them to recover to the greatest extent possible from the extreme living conditions to which they have been exposed since childhood.” 5 The State filed the following preliminary objections: “the arguments of the representative of the presumed victims regarding the imposition of life sentences, execution of sentence, and observance of the guarantee of review of the conviction, exceed the procedural purpose on which the case before the IACHR was substantiated”; “preliminary objection (Article 47(d) of the Convention): the arguments of the IACHR and of the representative of the petitioners regarding the detention conditions in the Mendoza Prisons, as well as the death of Ricardo David Videla Fernández and the judicial investigations opened regarding this event are essentially a replication of a previous petition. Violation of the principle of ‘international res judicata’”; “the detention conditions of Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza y César Alberto Mendoza in juvenile institutions and establishments belonging to the Federal Penitentiary Service, as well as the supposed negative consequences of the transfers on their rehabilitation processes exceed the procedural purpose of the application”; “the procedural claims of the representative of the petitioners with regard to Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal became theoretical,” and “preliminary objection of the lack of competence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to deal with the claims for pecuniary reparation requested by the representative of the alleged victims.” 6