D.3) The Commission’s request to question an expert witness proposed by the representatives 19. The Commission requested the oral or written opportunity to question expert witness Claudia Samayoa, proposed by the representatives, because the proposed purpose is related to protection measures for human rights defenders in dangerous situations and the criminal investigation of patterns of human rights violence against them. In its observations on the final lists of deponents presented by the parties, the Commission added that “this issue is related both to inter-American public order and to the matter to be dealt with by the expert opinion of Pedro Berrizbeitia,” offered by the Commission. 20. Regarding the Commission’s request, the President recalls the provisions contained in the Court’s Rules of Procedure with regard to the reception of testimony proposed by the Commission, as well as with regard to its faculty to question the deponents offered by the other parties. 4 21. In particular, it is pertinent to recall the provisions of Article 50(5) of the Rules of Procedure, which establish that “[t]he alleged victims or their representatives, the respondent State, and, if applicable, the petitioning State may formulate questions in writing for the declarants offered by the opposing party and, if applicable, by the Commission who have been convened by the Court to render their statements by affidavit.” This article should be read in conjunction with Article 52(3) of the Rules of Procedure, which establishes the possibility that the Commission question the expert witnesses presented by the other parties, when stipulating that “if authorized by the Court upon receiving a wellgrounded request therefor, when the inter-American public order of human rights is affected in a significant manner and the statement in question regards a topic included in the statement of an expert witness offered by the Commission.” Hence, in each case, the Commission must substantiate the relationship with both inter-American public order and the matter on which the expert opinion is offered, so that the Court or its President may duly assess the request and, if appropriate, authorize the Commission to ask its questions. 22. The President notes that, although the purpose of the expert opinion of Claudia Samayoa covers aspects that may be relevant for inter-American public order, it is not possible to relate it to the expert opinion offered by the Commission, because the latter does not have implications for inter-American public order (supra considering paragraph 13). Therefore, since the second requirement established in Article 52(3) of the Rules of Procedure is not met, the request is denied. E. Application of the Assistance Fund 23. In the Order adopted by the President on November 28, 2011 (supra having seen paragraph 6), he decided to find admissible the request made by the presumed victims, through their representatives, to access the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of the InterAmerican Court; hence, the necessary financial assistance would be granted to cover the expenses relating to the adequate appearance or presentation of a maximum of four testimonies, either at the hearing or by affidavit. 4 Cf. Case of González Medina and Family Members v. Dominican Republic. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 3, 2011, forty-fourth considering paragraph. 6