international standards for juvenile criminal justice in light of the American Convention. Moreover, the expert opinion of Alberto Bovino can help clarify the impact at the regional and state level of criminal procedure of an accusatory nature, the possible conflict between its principles and the alleged restriction in Argentina of the right to appeal a judgment established in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. Lastly, the expert opinion of Lawrence O. Gostin relates to a matter that has not been widely developed by the Court, particularly with regard to State obligations in relation to the mental health of individuals in State custody. Therefore, the President finds that the expert opinions proposed by the Commission can contribute to strengthening the standards of protection of the interAmerican system of human rights in these matters, and that they transcend the specific facts of the instant case and the particular interest of the parties to the litigation and, therefore, are issues that are relevant to inter-American public order. 11. Based on the above, the President finds it pertinent that the Court receive the expert opinions of Miguel Cillero Bruñol, Alberto Bovino and Lawrence O. Gostin. The usefulness of the opinions will be assessed at the appropriate opportunity, in the context of the existing body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judicial discretion. The purpose and method of receiving these expert opinions are determined in the operative paragraphs of this Order (infra operative paragraphs 1 and 5). B. Testimonial and expert evidence offered by the representative 12. Firstly, with regard to the testimonial evidence offered, Argentina contested “the evidence provided in relation to the violation of Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention to the detriment of Ricardo David Videla Fernández; the evidence regarding the detention conditions in the prisons of the province of Mendoza, that relating to the measures requested with regard to access to work, education, visits and transfers as well as the procedural demands of Cristian Saúl Roldán Cajal.” In this regard, for the President to be able to assess adequately the pertinence of the objections raised by the parties to the statements of the presumed victims or witnesses, the party that raises the objection must refer precisely to the specific evidence it is contesting and the reasons or arguments that substantiate its objections. In the instant case, the State did not specify the statements that it contests. The President recalls that the representative offered 17 statements of presumed victims (supra having seen paragraph 6). Therefore, as formulated, the State’s objection is inadmissible. 13. Therefore, and also taking into account that the Inter-American Commission did not present observations (supra having seen paragraph 14), the President finds it desirable to receive the statements of the presumed victims offered by the representative. Their probative value will be assessed by the Court at the appropriate procedural moment. The purpose of these statements and the method of receiving them are determined in the operative paragraphs of this Order (infra operative paragraphs 1 and 5). 14. Second, the State contested the expert opinion of Sofía Tiscornia considering that it “exceeds the purpose of the application,”3 and the expert opinion of Laura Dolores Sobredo because it refers to “issues discussed, agreed on, and being resolved in the context of                                                              3 The expert opinion was offered for Sofía Tiscornia to refer to: “the impact of life imprisonment on the life of children and adolescents, including their affective and social ties and their education and vocational training”; also, to “the practice of detention centers of systematically transferring persons deprived of liberty, and the consequences of this practice in relation to the declared purposes of prison sentences,” and to “the effects of this type of sentence on the families of those who are convicted.” 5