basis of the object indicated, the capacity in which said statement is offered and the admissibility of the request to question the deponent by virtue of being in the interAmerican public interest. 24. Thus, the President notes that the object of the statement of Nery Velásquez, offered by the State, is divided into three aspects: i) the mode of operation of CONADEH in relation the protection of human rights defenders; ii) the criminal process in Honduras under the legislation in effect at the time of the facts, and iii) the indication of whether Mr. Luna López filed a complaint with CONADEH. Based on the foregoing, the statement is considered to be almost entirely an expert opinion, given the deponent’s expertise and participation by reason of his professional practice in Honduras. 25. However, based on the same analysis of the object of the expert opinion, the President considers that this opinion does not specifically relate to the inter-American public interest, given that the three aspects refer to the study of the specific situation and legislation of a State, without this implying that the object of such an opinion transcends the interest and object of the present case and that it may have an impact on situations occurring in other States Parties to the Convention. For all the foregoing reasons, the President considers that the request of the Commission is not admissible. E. Manner in which the statements and expert opinions are to be rendered 26. It is necessary to ensure knowledge of the truth and the most complete presentation of the facts and arguments by the parties, insofar as these are pertinent to resolving the matters in dispute, guaranteeing both the parties’ right to defend their respective positions and the Court’s possibility of adequately examining the cases submitted to its consideration, bearing in mind that their number has grown considerably and is increasing constantly. It is also necessary to guarantee a reasonable term in the length of the proceeding, as required for effective access to justice. Accordingly, it is essential to receive the greatest possible number of testimonies and expert opinions through affidavits, and that the Court hear those alleged victims, witnesses and expert witnesses whose direct testimony is truly indispensable at a public hearing, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the object of the testimonies and expert opinions. 1. Statements to be rendered before a notary public (affidavit) 27. Bearing in mind the provisions of Article 50(1) of the Rules, the indications of the parties in their definitive lists of deponents, the object of the statements offered and their connection with the facts of the case, as well as the principle of procedural economy, the President deems it appropriate to receive, through affidavits rendered before a notary public, the following testimonies and expert opinions: the expert opinion of Michael Reed-Hurtado, the expert witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission; Rosa Margarita Valle Hernández, Carlos Luna Valle, Mariana Luna Valle, Allan Luna Valle, Jose Luna Valle and Roger Luna Valle, alleged victims proposed by the representatives; Luis Enrique Eguren and Alicia Neuburger, expert witnesses proposed by the representatives; and Nery Velásquez, a witness proposed by the State. 28. The President emphasizes that Article 50(5) of the Rules of the Court, applicable to this case, allows alleged victims or their representatives and the respondent State to formulate questions in writing to be answered by those summoned 7