CONSIDERING THAT: 1. The offering and admission of evidence, as well as the summons of the alleged victims and expert witnesses, are regulated by Articles 35(1)(f), 40(2)(c), 41(1)(c), 46, 50, and 57 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 2. The Commission offered three expert reports as evidence; the representatives offered the statements of five alleged victims and one witness, as well as an expert report. The evidence was noted at the due procedural moment, except that of the State as it did not file its answer within the period established for it to have done so. (supra Having Seen clause 1, 3, and 7). 3. The Court guaranteed the parties the right to defense regarding the evidence submitted in the briefs submitting the case and the brief containing pleadings and motions, as well as the final lists (supra Having Seen clause 10), without their being objections or challenges. 4. In regard to the statements offered by the representatives that were not contested, this Presidency considered it convenient to collect them, in order for the Court to assess them during the appropriate procedural opportunity. The purpose and manner of these statements will be established in the operative part of this Order. (infra Operative Paragraphs 1 and 5). 5. On the other hand, in the brief containing pleadings and motions, the representatives offered the expert statement of Mr. Louis Coté, but at the same time, they adjoined a copy of this statement as an annex to their brief. As a consequence, the expert statement of Mr. Coté is documentary evidence, which will be assessed at the due opportunity, within the context of the existent body of evidence and pursuant to the rules of sound judgment. 6. In addition, in this Order, the President will examine in a particular manner: a) the admissibility of the expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission; b) the manner of the statements and expert reports to be rendered, c) the application of the Victim’s Legal Assistance Fund, and d) the final oral and written arguments and observations. A. Expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission 7. Pursuant to that established in Article 35(1)(f) of the Rules of Procedure, “the possible appointment of expert witnesses” can be carried out by the Inter-American Commission “when the Inter-American public order is affected in a significant manner,” whose basis and purpose must be appropriately supported. The meaning of this provision makes the appointment of experts by the Commission an exceptional occurrence, subject to the requirement that is not met by the mere fact that the evidence sought to be produced have a relationship with an alleged violation of a human right. The “Inter-American public order [must] be affected in a significant manner,” after which it corresponds to the Commission to support the situation.3                                                              3 Cf. Case of Pedro Miguel Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 23, 2010, Considering clause 9, and Case of the El Mozote and Nearby Places v. El Salvador. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 22, 2012, Considering clause 17.  3