would be replaced by Mr. Carlos Delgado Bolaños, an academic and consultant, but did not explain the reason for this change. 26. In this regard, the Commission argued that the substitution of the deponents offered is admissible only “exceptionally” and “with a well founded request”, and noted that the State did not provide information explaining the reasons that would justify the admissibility of this request. 27. The President takes cognizance of the expert witnesses confirmed in the definitive list of the State and considers it admissible to receive the expert opinions of Verónica Valencia and Jaysoon Abarca. The Court shall assess the value of the expert opinions proposed by the State in due course, within the framework of the existing body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. Their object and the manner in which they will be rendered shall be determined in the operative part of this Order (infra Operative paragraph 1). 28. As to the request to substitute an expert witness, the President recalls that the proper procedural stage for submitting expert evidence by the State is the answer brief. Also, the President advises that the request to submit definitive lists of deponents does not represent a new procedural opportunity to offer evidence7, except in the cases established in Article 57(2) of the Rules, namely: force majeure, serious impediment or supervening events.8 The main purpose of the definitive lists is to allow the Commission, the alleged victims or their representatives and the State to confirm or withdraw the statements offered, and also, having regard to the principle of procedural economy, to indicate which of the deponents proposed they consider should render their statement at a public hearing and which deponents may do so by affidavit, for the purpose of programming the public hearing in the most effective manner possible. In this case, the State offered no justification for its request for substitution, but merely indicated the name of the new expert witness and submitted his curriculum vitae. In this regard, it is pertinent to recall that the party that offers evidence must ensure that its submission complies with the regulatory requirements and that failure to submit evidence at the proper time and in the correct manner leads to it being declared inadmissible. Thus, taking into account the exceptional circumstances defined in the Rules of Procedure for the substitution of deponents and the lack of justification for such a request, the Court cannot admit the substitution proposed by Ecuador and, therefore, shall not admit the expert opinion on legal accounting for pecuniary reparations. C. Request by the Commission to formulate questions to one of the expert witnesses offered by the representative 29. In its observations to the definitive list, the Commission requested “an opportunity to formulate verbal or written questions to the expert witness Iván Castro Patiño, offered by the representative, whose statement relates “both to the interAmerican public order and the subject matter of the expert opinion offered by the Commission.” In this regard, it indicated that this request “is based on the importance 7 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 26, 2009, Considering paragraph 14, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Order of the President of the Court of January 31, 2011, Considering paragraph 22. 8 Cf. Case of the “Massacre of La Rochela” v. Colombia. Order of the President of the Court of September 22, 2006, Considering paragraphs 20-24, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay, supra, Considering paragraph 22. 8