knowledge-base. On the contrary, he has been asked to form an opinion with regard to issues that are the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and of which, in fact, the Tribunal represent the greatest source of expertise in the Inter-American System.” 18. In its observations on the objections filed by Argentina, the Inter-American Commission indicated that Mr. Bovino’s expertise “lies precisely in the international standards on two of the main issues arising from this case – the right to appeal a judgment, and the principle of legality and nonretroactivity – and that his experience and knowledge permit him to apply these standards to Argentine criminal law and procedure, and more precisely, to the particulars of the criminal proceedings against Mr. Mohamed.” 19. First, the Court notes that when the President decided to declare the aforementioned objections of the State inadmissible, he did not affirm that this was because the expert testimonies were to be exclusively on Argentine criminal law and procedure. What the President highlighted as relevant is that the three proposed experts posses specialized legal knowledge on criminal law, criminal procedure, and the Argentine criminal code (supra Considering clause 16). 20. After declaring these objections inadmissible, the President determined that Mr. Bovino’s expert testimony relates to the Inter-American public order, was admissible, and established its subject as being “the international standards on the principle of legality and nonretroactivity, the scope of the right to appeal a judgment, and the application of these standards on the criminal prosecution and conviction on the victim in this case.” 21. The Court finds that the reason given by the President for the dismissal of these objections and the terms in which he declared Mr. Bovino’s expert testimony admissible are not contradictory. Although Mr. Bovino’s expert opinion is directed to refer principally to the aforementioned international standards, his specialized knowledge in criminal law, criminal procedure, and Argentine legal processes will be relevant both in evaluating these standards, as well as their application in the criminal prosecution and conviction of the alleged victim in the present case. Accordingly, the Court considers the State’s appeal inappropriate in this regard, and maintains the President’s decisions to dismiss the State’s objections with respect to expert witnesses, and to admit the expert testimony of Mr. Alberto Bovino, as set out in the Order of the President. C) Decision of the President to convene expert witnesses Alberto Bovino and Julio Maier to render their opinion in court and not by affidavit 22. In its observations on the final list of deponents, the State indicated that, Notwithstanding the foregoing arguments [by which it objected to the admissibility of all the expert witnesses], while the proposed expert testimonies are clearly expendable, in the event that the Honorable Court should decide to receive them […], the State opposes that these should be given in a public hearing, as the transfer to the Court itself is a patently unnecessary expense, especially when taking into account the fact that Mr. Mohamed has requested application to the Victims’ Assistance Fund. As a result, the State requests that, in any event, the expert opinions be received through affidavit. 23. In his Order, the President put forth the criteria whereby he determined which evidence would be received at the hearing and which would be received through affidavit in the following terms: 44. It is necessary to ensure the most comprehensive presentation of facts and arguments by the parties in all that is relevant to the resolution of controversial issues, ensuring the parties the right to defend their respective positions, as well as the right to adequately address the cases 6