ORDER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF JUNE 18, 2012 CASE OF MOHAMED v. ARGENTINA HAVING SEEN: 1. The Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court,” “the Court,” or “the Tribunal”) of June 4, 2012, whereby, inter alia, he requested via affidavit, the alleged victim’s statement and the opinion of an expert witness, both proposed by the representatives of the alleged victim,1 and convened the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”), the representatives of the alleged victim (hereinafter “the representatives”), and the Republic of Argentina (hereinafter “the State”) to a public hearing in order to receive their closing oral arguments on merits and eventual reparations and costs in the present case, as well as the opinions of two expert witnesses, one proposed by the Inter-American Commission and the other by the representatives. 2. The brief of June 8, 2012, whereby the State “lodged a formal appeal with [the] Honorable Court against the Order of [the] President dated June 4th of this year, particularly with regard to the decisions outlined in […] Paragraphs 24 to 27, […and] Paragraphs 28 to 32 therein.”2 3. The notes of the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of June 11, 2012, whereby, following a directive of the President of the Tribunal, it communicated to the representatives and the Inter-American Commission that they had a strict deadline of June 13, 2012, by which to present observations on the appeal lodged by the State. 4. The brief of June 12, 2012, whereby the Inter-American Commission submitted its observations on the appeal lodged by Argentina. The representatives did not present any observations. CONSIDERING THAT: Judge Leonardo A. Franco, of Argentine nationality, excused himself from hearing the Mohamed case, in accordance with Article 19(2) of the Statute and 19(1) of the Rules of the Court (approved by the Court in its LXXXV Ordinary Period of Sessions, held November 16 to 28, 2009). 1 The representatives of the alleged victim are two Inter-American defenders designated in accordance with that which is set out in Article 37 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 2 Considering clauses 24 to 27 of the Order of the President refer to the State’s objections to the admissibility of the expert testimony proposed by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives. Considering clauses 28 to 32 of the Order of the President decides upon the objection lodged by the State against the expert witness proposed by the Commission.