Commission requested an opportunity to formulate questions. 42. Therefore, having regard to Articles 50(5) and 52(3) of the Rules, the acting President considers it appropriate to grant the Commission an opportunity to formulate questions to the expert witnesses José María Asencio Mellado, Eduardo Alcocer Povis and Miguel Ángel Soria, specifically on matters related to the inter-American public order, but not on those aspects that exclusively apply to this specific case. As to the request to interrogate Mr. Federico Javier Llaque Moya, given that the challenge presented by the representative was accepted and his statement is to be received for information purposes only, it is not appropriate to consider this request. I. Admissibility of transferring an expert opinion rendered in the context of the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru and of witness statements included as attachments to the brief of pleadings and motions 43. The representative requested that “the [e]xpert report prepared by Ana Deutsch […] in the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison [,]be annexed to the instant [case] since it is relevant as regards the impact of what happened to J, [and] her mother, who was one of the persons interviewed by expert witness Deutsch.” Moreover, the representative attached two “sworn statements”, one from J’s mother, rendered in the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, and another from Emma Vigueras “who acted as legal representative […] of another detainee in the same operation in which [J] was arrested”, and which was presented before the Commission in the processing of this case. These attachments were transmitted to the Commission and the State together with the brief of pleadings and motions. 44. In this regard, the State objected to the inclusion of the expert opinion of Ana Deutsch rendered in the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, arguing that this expert opinion “refers to a Psychological and Psychosocial Evaluation carried out on the survivors of the events in that case”, and indicated that “such facts do not form part of this case”. Moreover, the State noted that the statement of J’s mother refers to “what she experienced as a mother in relation to the facts under investigation in [that] case”, and would therefore be outside the factual framework of this case. The State did not submit observations regarding the “sworn statement” of Emma Vigueras. 45. The acting President recalls that this is not the appropriate procedural stage to rule on the factual framework or the determination of alleged victims in this case (supra Considering para. 17). Therefore, the State’s observations regarding the statement of J’s mother are not admissible at this stage. With regard to the reception and assessment of the evidence, the Court has previously stated that the proceedings conducted before it are not subject to the same formalities as domestic proceedings, and that when incorporating certain elements into the body of evidence, particular attention must be paid to the circumstances of the specific case and to the limits imposed by respect for legal certainty and procedural equality between the parties.20 In particular, regarding the representative’s request to transfer testimony, the acting President notes that the expert opinion of Mrs. Ana Deutsch, rendered in the case of the Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, was presented by 20 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C. No. 117, para. 55, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Court of December 20, 2012, Considering para. 14. 13