16. Regarding the Commission’s request, the President recalls the provisions of the Rules of Procedure regarding the reception of statements proposed by the Commission, as well as in relation to its authority to question the deponents offered by the other parties.6 In particular, the provisions of Article 50(5) of the Rules of Procedure should be recalled, which establish that “[t]he alleged victims or their representatives, the respondent State, and, if applicable, the petitioning State may formulate questions in writing for the deponents offered by the opposing party and, if applicable, by the Commission, who have been convened by the Court to render their statements by affidavit.” This provision should be read in conjunction with Article 52(3) of the Rules of Procedure, which establishes the possibility for the Commission to question the expert witnesses presented by the parties, “if authorized by the Court upon receiving a well-founded request therefor, when the interAmerican public order of human rights is affected in a significant manner and the statement in question regards a topic included in the statement of an expert witness offered by the Commission.” Thus, in each case, the Commission must substantiate the relationship with both inter-American public order and the matter to which the opinion of the expert witness relates, so that the Court or its President may assess the request opportunely and, if appropriate, authorize the Commission to pose its questions.7 17. In this regard, the President observes that the Commission expressed its desire to pose questions, either orally or in writing, to expert witness Lilian Gimol Pinto, taking into account the alleged relationship between the first component of her expert opinion and one of the components of the opinion of Miguel Cillero Bruñol; in other words, the “standards of international human rights law for juvenile criminal justice.” In addition, it substantiated its request regarding the “variety of perspectives” that these opinions, taken as a whole, may provide to the Court. In this regard, the President verified that the purposes of the two expert opinions overlap partially, as mentioned; that both go beyond the facts of the instant case, and that they have an impact on inter-American public order. Also, in this Order, the President has already considered it pertinent to receive the expert opinion of Liliana Gimol Pinto, offered by the representative, and the expert opinion of Miguel Cillero Bruñol, offered by the Commission (supra considering paragraphs 11 and 14). Therefore, the President finds that the Inter-American Commission’s request to question Liliana Gimol Pinto is admissible. The questions should be limited to the “standards of international human rights law for juvenile criminal justice,” which is the aspect mentioned in the purposes of the two expert opinions. D. Method of receiving the statements of the alleged victims and the expert opinions 18. It is necessary to ensure the most extensive presentation of the facts and arguments by the parties on everything that is pertinent for deciding disputed matters, guaranteeing both the latter’s right to defend their respective positions and also the Court’s ability to give adequate attention to the cases submitted to its consideration, taking into account that their number has increased significantly and is growing constantly. It must also be ensured that the proceedings are completed within a reasonable time, as required by effective access to justice. Consequently, it is necessary to receive the greatest possible number of statements                                                              6 Case of González Medina and Family Members v. Dominican Republic. Order of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 3, 2011, forty-eighth considering paragraph, and Case Mohamed v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 4, 2012, fortieth considering paragraph. 7 Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 14, 2011, twenty-fifth considering paragraph, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, supra note 6, fortieth considering paragraph. 7