may provide a list of questions to ask those persons called upon to provide affidavits. In addition, in order to provide his expert opinion, Hernán Gullco, convened ex officio by the President, must forward the Court an estimate of the cost of preparing an affidavit in Argentina and forwarding it, within the time frame established in the operative paragraphs of this Order (infra first operative paragraph). 23. Under the provisions of the said Rules of Procedure, the President proceeds to grant the State an opportunity to submit, if it so wishes, any questions it deems pertinent to the deponents and the expert witnesses mentioned in the preceding paragraph. When preparing their affidavits, the deponents must respond to these questions, unless the President rules otherwise. The corresponding time frames will be established infra, in the first and second operative paragraphs of this Order. The said statements and expert opinions will be forwarded to the Commission and to the State. In turn, the Commission and the State may present any observations they deem pertinent within the time frame indicated in the operative paragraphs of this Order (infra fourth operative paragraph). The Court will determine the probative value of the said statements at the appropriate opportunity, taking into account the points of view of the parties in exercise of their right to defense, if applicable. d.2) Statements and expert opinions to be received at the hearing 24. The instant case is ready for the opening of the oral proceedings regarding the preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs. Consequently, the President deems it pertinent to convene a public hearing in order to receive the following four statements: the statement of the presumed victim, Claudio Furlan; the expert opinion of Gustavo Daniel Moreno and of María Laura Subies, proposed by the representatives, and the expert opinion of Alejandro Morlachetti, proposed by the Commission. The Court will also receive the final oral arguments of the representatives and the State, and the final oral observations of the Commission. d.3) The Commission’s request to pose questions to the two expert witnesses proposed by the representatives 25. The Commission asked “to be able to question Gustavo Daniel Moreno, whose expert opinion addresses issues of inter-American public interest,” and who will refer, among other matters, “to the civil and commercial proceedings of the domestic judicial system, the decision-making power of the judges in the procedural system, to when a case for damages can be considered complex, and the usual time it takes to process such cases.” In this regard, the Commission asked whether it could question the said lawyer specifically about “those issues directly related to the purpose of the expert opinion of Hernán Gullco; namely, the main problems that lead to delay in the decisions and in the implementation of reparations ordered in light of the State’s international obligations, and to the expert opinion of Alejandro Morlachetti.” The Commission considered that “Mr. Moreno will provide information about the interrelationship between the said international standards and their application at the domestic level.” 26. Regarding the Commission’s request, the President recalls the restrictions established in the Rules of Procedure currently in force with regard to the reception of testimony proposed by the Commission, as well as in relation to its prerogative to question the deponents offered by the other parties.6 6 Cf. Case of González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic. Order of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 3, 2011, forty-fourth considering paragraph. 7