procedural stage for the Commission to present expert evidence is during the submission of the case, with an additional period of 21 days to forward the corresponding attachments, in accordance with Article 28 of the Rules. This requirement was observed by the Commission. However, the Commission’s supporting arguments regarding the “inter-American public interest” in the instant case were only submitted together with its observations to the preliminary objections filed by the State and in its definitive list of deponents. The foregoing does not significantly affect the principle of equality between the parties or the State’s right to defense, since the latter had an opportunity to submit any observations deemed pertinent regarding those arguments in its observations to the definitive lists of deponents. Moreover, it is also the proper procedural moment for submitting observations or objections to the deponents offered by any of the other parties in the case, according to Article 46(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Therefore, as has occurred in other cases2, the President admits the aforementioned arguments presented by the Inter-American Commission in its brief of observations to the preliminary objections and in its definitive list, subsequent to the submission of the case, and shall take these into consideration when assessing the admissibility of the respective expert opinion. 9. Furthermore, regarding the link between the object of the expert opinion of Laura Cecilia Pautassi and the inter-American public order, the President takes note of the Commission’s observation that said expert report refers “to the obligations to protect and promote human rights, in situations resulting in permanent after-effects and continuous deterioration of health,” which transcend the victims in this case. In this sense, this Presidency notes that the object of that expert opinion would facilitate an analysis of international standards on “access to justice and its relationship with the right to health [and] due diligence in […] cases of this type.” In view of the foregoing, the President considers that the analysis of the State’s obligations in relation to due diligence, and the efficacy of investigations and the corresponding legal proceedings, specifically in cases that affect the right to health in a permanent way, may have an impact on situations that arise in other States Parties to the Convention. Thus, the object of this expert report is a matter that affects the inter-American public order and transcends this case and the specific interest of the parties in litigation. 10. Based on the foregoing considerations, the President considers it appropriate to admit the expert opinion of Laura Cecilia Pautassi, proposed by the Inter-American Commission, and recalls that the value of said opinion shall be assessed in due course, within the context of the body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. The object and manner in which that expert opinion shall be rendered are specified in the operative section of this Order (infra operative paragraph 5). 2. Request to transfer the expert opinions provided in the case Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador 11. In its brief submitting the case, the Commission requested that the expert opinions provided by Ernesto Albán Gómez and Raúl Moscoso Álvarez, in the case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador (supra Having Seen 1), be included in the case file, where appropriate. 2 Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 14, 2011, Considering paragraph 10, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 25, 2012, Considering paragraph 13. 4