15. The representative offered the testimony of J’s sister, who would testify on “the impact that the facts that are the subject matter of these proceedings have had on [J´s] family”; the testimony of J’s partner, who would testify on “how the actions of the Peruvian State in this case have affected [J] and their life project together”; the testimony of Susan Pitt, who would discuss “[J’s] situation as an asylum seeker in the United Kingdom, uprooted from her family, how the actions of the Peruvian State affected her with her renewed arrest in Germany and the way in which the actions of the Peruvian State have affected her life project”, and the testimony of Martin Rademacher, who would testify on “the situation [J] faced in Germany in the context of her extradition, and [would] discuss aspects of the request for extradition by the Peruvian State relevant to this case, and [would] describe the impact of [J’s] detention on [her] family, resident in Germany.” 16. The State objected to the four testimonies proposed by the representative for several reasons. First, it indicated that the “Report on Merits No. 76/11 […] only identified Mrs. J as the alleged victim in this case”, and that therefore Mrs. J’s family and partner cannot be considered “as parties whose rights are presumably affected” 7. Secondly, regarding the effects on Mrs. J’s life project, the State held that “chronologically, this is subsequent to the facts of this case”, and, despite this “the petitioner herself was the one who changed or frustrated her life plan by taking the decision to join a terrorist organization, as postulated by the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Peruvian State.” 8 The State also indicated that the “legal definition of refuge – or of asylum– of [Mrs. J] in the United Kingdom” does not form part of the dispute in this case, nor does “Mrs. J´s extradition process”9. Finally, regarding the specific object of Mrs. Pitt’s statement, the State noted that “there is a vagueness in the legal status granted Mrs. [J] by the United Kingdom […]. As Mrs. J has stated in her previous briefs, and as the Inter-American Commission has also indicated, the United Kingdom granted Mrs. [J] the status of a refugee, not an asylum seeker, for which reason this witness statement is not pertinent.” 17. With respect to the State’s observations, in the first place the acting President points out that the deponents whose statements were proposed by the representative were offered as witnesses and not as alleged victims. In the second place, the acting President recalls that it is up to the Court to examine the facts of the case at the proper procedural stage, and to determine the legal consequences arising from these, after hearing the arguments of the parties and based on an assessment of the evidence presented, according to the rules of sound judgment.10 Therefore, when the Court requires evidence to be received this does not imply a decision or a prejudgment on the merits of the case. The acting President considers that the State’s observations regarding the determination of the alleged victims, the limits of the object and factual framework of the case or the specification of Mrs. J’s migratory status in the United Kingdom, are all matters on which the acting President does not need to decide at the present procedural stage. These objections concern matters that the parties seek to prove in the present dispute and whose potential value shall be decided in the possible stages of merits and reparations, if applicable. Once this evidence has been examined, Peru will have an opportunity to present any observations it deems necessary regarding its content. Consequently, the acting President considers that the State’s objections to the witness statements offered by the representative are not admissible. 7 The State presented this argument in relation to the testimonies of J’s sister, J’s partner, Susan Pitt and Martin Rademacher. 8 The State presented this argument in relation to the testimonies of J’s partner and Susan Pitt. 9 The State presented this argument in relation to the testimonies of Susan Pitt and Martin Rademacher. 10 Cf. Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Order of the President of the Court of December 22, 2009, Considering para. 14, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Order of the President of the Court of January 25, 2012, Considering para. 25. 6