Ana Carcedo Cabañas and María Eugenia Solís García, offered by the representatives (supra Having Seen 4). 16. The brief of March 26, 2013, in which the State submitted its observations to the definitive lists of deponents proposed by the representatives and the Commission and requested that “the […] Court take note of the similarity between the expert opinions proposed by the Illustrious Commission and the petitioners [,] so that not all these are accepted, but only those that the High Court considers pertinent and necessary to facilitate adjudication.”. It added that it wished to “express the fact that the State considers that […] it is not necessary for Dr. Kepfer to testify at the public hearing,” and also “to express its objection to the testimony of the lawyer of REDNOVI, María Luisa de León Santizo.” It further asked the Court “to note its objection to the expert opinion of Dr. Nájera.” Finally, the State requested that “the observations, challenges and objections expressed in [its] brief be taken into account.” 17. The communication of April 4, 2013, in which the Secretariat, following the instructions of the President, indicated that, regarding the alleged objections to the expert witnesses Rodolfo Kepfer Rodríguez and José Mario Nájera Ochoa, the term established in Article 48(3) would not be granted, because the State’s argument is not based on any of the grounds for disqualification. Thus, the Secretariat indicated that the observations raised by the State regarding those expert witnesses would be addressed by the President of the Court, in due course. It also advised that the observations and objections raised by the State regarding the witness Luisa de León Santizo and the expert witnesses proposed by the Commission and the representatives would be considered by the President at the proper procedural moment. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. The offer and admission of evidence, as well as the formal summons of the alleged victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, are regulated under Articles 35(1)(f), 40(2)(c), 41(1) (c), 46(1), 50 and 57 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 2. The Commission offered as evidence two expert opinions and the representatives offered the statements of three alleged victims, one witness and four expert witnesses (supra Having Seen 1, 3, 4, 9, 10 and 12). For its part, the State did not offer any testimonial or expert evidence (supra Having Seen 5). 3. The Court guaranteed the parties the right to defense in respect of the offers of evidence contained in their briefs submitting the case and in the brief of pleadings and motions, as well as in the definitive lists of deponents (supra Having Seen 11). 4. The Commission stated that it had no observations to make to the definitive list of deponents of the representatives (supra Having Seen 15). For their part, the representatives did not raise any objections to the definitive list of expert witnesses presented by the Commission, but noted that the statements proposed by the Commission are related to the inter-American public order (supra Having Seen 14). The State submitted observations regarding the two expert witnesses and one witness proposed by the representatives (supra Having Seen 16). 3