hearing, and underscores the relevance of these expert opinions, considering the legal issues being disputed in the present case. Beyond this, the Court notes that the State did not offer any expert opinion on the legal issues under dispute; yet in its arguments, it cited excerpts of an opinion signed by Mr. Maier as supporting evidence. With this, it becomes even more relevant for this Court to hear the expert opinion of Julio Maier during the public hearing. Concerning the expenditures that this testimony entails, in accordance with that which is set out in the Rules of Procedure of the Legal Assistance Fund for Victims, the State will be notified promptly of the costs accrued in the application of said Fund, so that it might present its observations, if it so chooses, within the timeframe to be established for this purpose. 29. Moreover, with respect to the alleged infringement of the State’s right of defense by “the lack of treatment […] of the State’s subsidiary request,” it should be remembered that this Court has held that the duty to state reasons does not require a detailed answer to every argument of the parties, but may vary depending on the nature of the decision, and that is should be analyzed in each case whether this duty has been fulfilled.8 In the Order under appeal, the President discussed each and every one of the objections and challenges filed by Argentina: those focused on not admitting the expert testimony proposed by either the Commission or the representatives, the objection lodged against Mr. Alberto Bovino, the objections to the declaration by affidavit of the alleged victim, and the objections to the admissibility of the statements of the alleged victim’s family members. 30. Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal finds no reason to deviate from the decision of the President in this regard, and thereby maintains the decision of the President to convene expert witnesses Alberto Bovino and Julio Maier to render their testimonies in the public hearing and not by affidavit. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in accordance with Article 25(2) of the Statute of the Court and Articles 31(2), 45, 50, and 51 of its Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: 1. To dismiss the appeal lodged by the State and, as a result, to ratify the Order of June 4, 2012, of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its entirety. 2. To request that the Court’s Secretariat serve notice of the present Order upon the Argentine Republic, the representatives of the alleged victim, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 8 Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 90. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 154, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 146. 8