38. In its observations to the definitive lists, the Commission requested “an opportunity to formulate verbal or written questions, insofar as these are relevant and reasonable, to the four expert witnesses offered by the State of Peru, whose statements are related both to the inter-American public order and the subject matter of the expert opinions offered by the Inter-American Commission.” In this regard, it indicated that the expert opinions of Federico Javier Llaque Moya, José María Asencio Mellado and Eduardo Alcocer Povis, offered by the State, “are directly related to the topic to be addressed by the expert witness Stefan Trechsel,” while the expert opinion of Miguel Ángel Soria, “is related to the expert opinion to be rendered by Patricia Visseur Sellers.” 39. With regard to the Commission’s request, the acting President recalls the Court’s Rules of Procedure concerning the reception of statements proposed by the Commission, as well as its authority to question deponents offered by the other parties. 18 In particular, it is pertinent to recall that Article 50(5) of the Rules of the Court, applicable to this case, establishes that “…alleged victims or their representatives, the respondent State and, if applicable, the petitioning State, may formulate questions in writing for the deponents offered by the opposing party and, if applicable, by the Commission, who have been summoned by the Court to render their statements through affidavits.” This provision should be read in conjunction with Article 52(3) of the Rules, which makes provision for the Commission to question expert witnesses presented by the parties, “if authorized by the Court upon receiving a well-founded request therefor, when the inter-American public order of human rights is affected in a significant manner and the statement in question concerns a topic included in the statement of an expert witness offered by the Commission.” Thus, it is up to the Commission to demonstrate, in each case, the connection both with the interAmerican public order and with the subject matter of the expert opinion it has offered, so that the Court or its President may consider the request in due course, and, if appropriate, authorize the Commission to ask its questions.19 40. The acting President notes that the Commission mentioned two “issues” that link “part of the objects proposed” for the expert opinions offered by the State with the expert opinions offered by that body and with matters of inter-American public order in this case, namely: i) the standards of criminal due process to be taken into account in terrorism trials, and ii) conceptual elements for the legal definition of acts of sexual violence such as those suffered by Mrs. J. 41. Regarding the links described and alleged by the Commission, the acting President recalls that it previously considered that the objects of the expert opinions offered by the Commission concern the inter-American public order because they are related to “the different forms of sexual violence and their characterization in light of international human rights law”, and to standards for the protection of criminal due process in the context of legal frameworks designed to prosecute and punish terrorism (supra Considering paras. 36 and 37). The acting President further notes that the objects of the expert opinions proposed by the State are not limited to the situation of Peru or to this specific case, with the exception of part of the expert opinion of José María Asencio Mellado. The acting President considers that the object of the expert opinions offered by the Commission coincides with part of the objects of the expert opinions offered by the State regarding which the 18 Cf. Case of González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic. Order of the President of the Court of June 3, 2011, Considering para. 48, and Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Order of the President of the Court of February 19, 2013, Considering para. 38. 19 Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Order of the President of the Court of April 14, 2011, Considering para. 25, and Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Order of the President of the Court of February 19, 2013, Considering para. 38. 12