under consideration by the Court, taking into account that the number of cases has grown considerably, and increases steadily. It is also necessary to ensure a reasonable timeframe for the duration of the process, as required by the effective access to justice. In light of this, the Court must receive the greatest possible number of testimonies and expert opinions via affidavit, and to hear directly at public hearings the truly indispensable testimonies of alleged victims, witnesses, and experts– taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and the object of the statements and opinions. […] 51. The present case is ready for the initiation of oral proceedings on the preliminary objection and possible merits, reparations, and costs. For that reason, the President deems it pertinent to summon a public hearing for the receipt of the expert opinions of Alberto Bovino, proposed by the Commission, and Julio B.J. Maier, proposed by the representatives. 24. In appealing the Order of the President, the State alleged that it “has failed to consider the Argentine state’s opposition to the receipt of the expert testimony at the public hearing, in favor of receiving it via affidavit. This was made as an alternative request, in the event that the Honorable Court resolved to dismiss the State’s objection to the expert opinions outlined in the previous section, and taking into consideration budgetary reasons for avoiding unnecessary costs.” It also indicated that “the Tribunal’s failure to address the State’s subsidiary request violates the right of defense of the Argentine state, in light of which […] it requests that this issue be resolved expressly.” 25. The Commission did not present any observations on this point. 26. First, the Tribunal stresses that, in accordance with the stipulations of Article 50(1) of the Rules of Procedure, it is a discretionary faculty of the Court or its Presidency to determine which declarations should be rendered before a notary public (by affidavit) and which it deems necessary to be rendered in a public hearing. Likewise, the Court emphasizes that the President indicated relevant considerations when he decided upon the matter. The President signaled that this decision was made bearing in mind the number of cases being considered before the Court, the circumstances of this particular case, and the purpose of the statements and opinions. 27. Moreover, the Court notes that only two expert witnesses were convened to the public hearing to give their testimony before the Tribunal: Mr. Alberto Bovino and Mr. Julio Maier. The first of these experts was proposed by the Inter-American Commission, and as such, the Commission will cover the costs that this evidence generates; under no circumstances shall the costs be reimbursed by Argentina. The second expert witness to give an opinion was proposed by the representatives of the alleged victim, and the expenses necessary for his appearance before the Tribunal shall be covered by the InterAmerican Court’s Legal Assistance Fund for Victims (hereinafter the “Assistance Fund of the Court”), in accordance with that which was set forth by the President in the aforementioned Order.7 28. The Tribunal is in agreement with the President regarding the grounds on which he determined that expert witnesses Bovino and Maier should give their testimonies in a public 7 In the Order of June 4, 2012, the President also approved the request made by the Inter-American defenders, in their capacity as representatives of the alleged victim, to receive aid from the Court’s Legal ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia. to ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia. and ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia. to ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia., and operative paragraphs one to three. Assistance Fund for Victims. Cf. Considering clauses 7