11. The acting President notes that, in its answer brief, the State offered as testimonial evidence the statements of Julia Eguía Dávalos, Joe Modica Boada, Luis Castro Sánchez, Eduardo Solís, Víctor Manuel Rodríguez Pérez and Hugo Rivera Roque. However, the State did not confirm this offer in its definitive list of deponents. In this regard, the acting President notes that, according to Article 46(1) of the Rules, the proper procedural moment for the State to confirm or withdraw the offer of statements made in its answer brief is in the definitive list requested by the Court. 3 Therefore, the acting President considers that by not confirming said statements in its definitive list, Peru withdrew them, at the proper procedural stage. Based on the foregoing, the acting President takes cognizance of this withdrawal. C. Admissibility of a witness statement offered by the State in its definitive list of deponents 12. In its definitive list of deponents, the State offered, for the first time, the witness statement of Oscar Manuel Arriola Delgado. In this regard, the representative noted that said offer was time-barred and, furthermore, that its object concerns “matters that are not the object under consideration in this case.” 13. The acting President recalls that the proper procedural moment for the State to offer testimonial evidence is in its answer brief.4 The request to the parties to submit a definitive list of deponents to be summoned to testify, does not represent a new procedural opportunity to offer evidence5, except in the cases specified in Article 57(2) of the Rules, namely: force majeure, serious impediment or supervening events.6 In this case, the acting President finds that the State provided no justification in relation to the aforementioned time-barred offer. 14. Furthermore, the acting President notes that the proposed object of Mr. Arriola Delgado’s statement is related to the object of the joint testimony of three witnesses offered by the State in its answer brief, whose statements were withdrawn by Peru upon not confirming these in its definitive list (supra Considering para. 11). However, the acting President advises that the inclusion of Mr. Oscar Manuel Arriola Delgado in the State’s definitive list does not meet the requirements established for replacing one of the deponents originally offered, under Article 49 of the Rules (supra Considering para. 9). Therefore, in the absence of a valid argument by the State that would justify the extemporaneous presentation of this witness, this acting Presidency considers that the statement of Oscar Manuel Arriola Delgado is inadmissible. D. Objections by the State to the witness statements offered by the representative 3 Cf., Mutatis mutandis, Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Order of President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 23, 2010, Considering para. 8, and Case of Camba Campos et al. v. Ecuador. Order of February 15, 2013, Considering para. 6. 4 Cf., Mutatis mutandis, Case of Quintana Coello et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of December 20, 2012. Considering para. 12. 5 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Order of the President of the Court of February 26, 2009, Considering para. 14, and Case of Quintana Coello et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Court of December 20, 2012. Considering para. 12. 6 Cf. Case of the “Massacre of La Rochela” v. Colombia. Order of the President of the Court of December 22, 2006, Considering paras. 20-24, and Case of Quintana Coello et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Court of December 20, 2012, Considering para. 12. 5