affidavit.21 The acting President considers that, without prejudging the merits of this matter, part of the expert opinion of Mrs. Deutsch could be useful in relation to the arguments that the representative seeks to prove in this case. The evidence and arguments that form part of the position held by the representative in this proceeding shall be considered and assessed by the Court in due course, bearing in mind the State’s observations in this regard. Therefore, having regard to the principles of procedural economy and celerity, the acting President considers it appropriate to include in the body of evidence of this case, where pertinent, the written expert opinion rendered by Mrs. Ana Deutsch, since this could prove useful in resolving this case.22 46. Despite the foregoing, the acting President recalls that is the Court or its President who must decide whether the testimony of a person or an expert opinion is pertinent to a case. Also, it is up to the Court or its President to define the object of the statements and expert opinions offered by the parties. Given that neither the Court nor its President requested the statements submitted by the representative and the expert opinion of Mrs. Deutsch, and that no object was defined in relation to these, the President points out that these statements shall only be regarded as documentary evidence. The State may refer to those documents in its final arguments, which shall be assessed in due course, within the context of the existing body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment.23 J. Manner in which the statements and expert opinions will be received 47. It is necessary to ensure knowledge of the truth and the most complete presentation of the facts and arguments by the parties, insofar as these are pertinent to resolving the matters in dispute, guaranteeing both the parties’ right to defend their respective positions and the Court’s possibility of adequately examining the cases submitted to its consideration, bearing in mind that their number has grown considerably and is increasing constantly. It is also necessary to guarantee a reasonable term in the length of the proceeding, as required for effective access to justice. Accordingly, it is essential to receive the greatest possible number of testimonies and expert opinions through affidavits, and that the Court hear those alleged victims, witnesses and expert witnesses whose direct testimony is truly indispensable at a public hearing, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the object of the testimonies and expert opinions. J.1. Statements and expert opinions to be rendered by affidavit 48. Bearing in mind the provisions of Article 50(1) of the Rules, the indications of the Commission, the representative and the State in their definitive lists of deponents and in other briefs, the object of the statements offered, as well as the principle of procedural economy, the acting President deems it appropriate to receive, through affidavits rendered before a notary public, the witness statements of: J’s partner, Susan Pitt and Martin Rademacher, proposed by the representative; Nancy de la Cruz Chamilco, Pablo Talavera Elguera, Ana María Mendieta, proposed by the State; and the expert opinions of José María 21 The object of that expert opinion was on “the facts of the [Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru] and on matters related to [possible] reparations in [that] case”, in his capacity as an “expert on torture.” Cf. Case of Juárez Cruz Cruzzat et al. v. Peru. Order of the President of May 24, 2006, Operative para. 1. 22 Cf. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Order of the President of March 18, 2005, Considering paras. 7 to 10, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Order of the President of December 20, 2012, Considering para. 14. 23 Similarly, see Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Order of the Acting President of the Court of September 8, 2010, Considering para. 24, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. v. Guatemala. Order of the President of the Court of March 20, 2012, Considering para. 33. 14