that the representatives and the State had not presented observations on the definitive lists of deponents forwarded by the representatives and the Inter-American Commission. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. The offer and the admission of evidence, as well as the convening of presumed victims, witnesses and expert witnesses are regulated in Articles 35(1)(f), 40(2)(c), 41(1)(c), 42(2), 46(1), 50, 57 and 58 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 2. The Commission proposed the admission of two expert opinions. The representatives offered as evidence the testimony of three presumed victims, two witnesses and four expert witnesses. The evidence offered by the Commission and the representatives was indicated at the appropriate procedural opportunity. The State did not present testimonial or expert evidence (supra having seen paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.). 3. The parties have been given the right of defense with regard to the evidence offered by each of them in their briefs submitting the case and with pleadings and motions, and in their definitive lists of deponents (supra having seen paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 10). 4. The Commission indicated that it had no observations to make on the statements and expert opinions offered by the representatives (supra having seen paragraph 12). For its part, the State and the representatives did not present observations on the Commission’s definitive lists (supra having seen 13). 5. With regard to the statements and expert opinions offered by the representatives that have not been contested, the President considers it appropriate to admit the said evidence so that the Court can assess its usefulness at the appropriate procedural opportunity, within the context of the existing body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judicial discretion. This refers to the statements of two presumed victims: Claudio Furlan and Danilo Pedro Furlan; the testimony of two witnesses: María Teresa Grossi and Violeta Florinda Jano, and the opinions of two expert witnesses: Estela del Carmen Rodríguez and Gustavo Daniel Moreno. The purpose of these statements and the way in which they will be received are determined in the operative paragraphs of this Order (infra first and fifth operative paragraphs). a) Statement of a presumed victim attached to the pleadings and motions brief 6. In the section entitled “testimonial evidence” included in its pleadings and motions brief, the representatives indicated that “due to the difficulties and anguish that Sebastián Furlan experiences when talking about the accident and other aspects related to the trauma he suffered when he was 14 years old, and in order to avoid further victimization,” they asked the Court to “receive Sebastián’s statement which was forwarded by video” with one of the attachments to the said brief. This attachment was forwarded to the Commission and to the State, neither of which made any observations on it. 7. When presenting their definitive list of deponents, the representatives asked that the above-mentioned statement be received “in the video that had been duly forwarded.” Neither the Commission nor the State presented observations contrary to the ratification of this proposal. 3