system, and the future effect of the decision within the legal systems of the Member States. 12 Despite this, the Court has the authority to review an alleged violation of due process in the proceedings before that organ. 14. The Court underlines, however, that the references to inter-American public order in its Rules of Procedure do not establish additional requisites to those stipulated in the Convention as regards the admissibility of the cases submitted to its jurisdiction. The considerations of the President of the Court in his Order of December 19, 2012, related to the admissibility of the expert witness offered by the Commission in its brief submitting the case, 13 but, in no way, constituted a determination regarding the importance for interAmerican public order of the case as a whole, which – it should be repeated – is not a requirements for the admissibility of cases before the Court. Therefore, the Court rejects the State’s arguments concerning the inadmissibility of submitting this case to the Court’s consideration. B. Regarding the representation of the Commission at the public hearing before the Court 15. At the public hearing before the Court, as well as in its final written arguments, the State indicated that “based on the provisions of Article 57 of the Convention,” the Commission “should appear in all the cases before the Court, and failed to do so in the public hearing held in this case, at which […] no Commissioner was present.” In addition, according to the State, this is contrary to Article 71 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. For its part, the Commission indicated that the Court’s Rules of Procedure “explicitly allow” this situation. 16. The Court notes that the State did not make any specific request when setting out this argument. However, the Court recalls that Article 24 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure do not require the Commission to be represented before the Court by its commissioners. Likewise, neither the American Convention, nor the Statutes or the Rules of Procedures of the Court or of the Inter-American Commission include provisions establishing that the commissioners must appear in person at the public hearing before the Court, which is only one of the stages of the proceedings before the Court. 14 Therefore, as it has in other cases, 15 this Court rejects the alleged absence of representation of the Commission before the Court in this case. 12 The Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights approved by the Commission at its 137the regular session held from October 28 to November 13, 2009, and amended on September 2, 2011, as well as the current Rules of Procedure which were amended at its 147th regular session held from March 8, 2013, to enter into force on August 1, 2013. 13 In its brief submitting the case, the Commission offered the expert opinion of Julio César Rivera, who would testify on “the relationship that exists between the right to freedom of expression and judicial guarantees, specifically, to a reasonable time. The expert witness [would] offer relevant elements to be considered when examining whether delay in a sanctioning proceeding involving the right to freedom of expression c[ould] constitute a violation of the said right, irrespective of the outcome of the proceeding. The expert witness [would] also examine the effects of imposing protracted injunctive measures in the said proceedings on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression.” In his Order of December 19, 2012 (supra note 5), the President considered that this testimony was not admissible, because its purpose did not “encompass information, knowledge or legal parameters concerning the protection of human rights” that affected inter-American public order in a significant manner, in keeping with the requirement established in Article 35(f) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 14 Article 24 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establish that “[t]he Commission shall be represented by the delegates it has designated for that purpose. Delegates may be assisted by any persons of their choice.” According to Article 2(12), the term Delegates should be understood, for the effect of these Rules of Procedure, as “the persons designated by the Commission to represent it before the Court.” 15 Cf. Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Preliminary objections. Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C No. 12, para. 27. 9