4 10. The President finds that the Commission did not state how the object of the expert testimony it proposed is relevant to the Inter-American public order, as required in Article 35(1)(f) of the Rules of Procedure, as it is not clear from the Commission's arguments how situations occurring in other States parties may be affected. The President also considers that the jurisprudence of this Tribunal is well developed on the scope of constitutional control and the right to fair trial and judicial protection. Nevertheless, the President finds that the expert testimony of Mr. Olásolo would be useful and relevant for the resolution of the present case 2 with regard to the principle of non ex post facto application of the law, and thus considers it appropriate to receive his testimony under Article 50(1) of the Rules of Procedure, according to which the Court shall summon all those who deems appropriate to a hearing, if necessary. The expert opinion shall be assessed in timely fashion, within the context of the existing body of evidence, and on the basis of sound judgment. The President will determine the object of Mr. Olásolo’s testimony, as well as the manner in which this evidence shall be rendered to the Court (infra Operative para. 5). B. Alleged Victim's Declaration 11. The Court notes that the alleged victim was precluded from submitting a definitive list of declarants (supra Having Seen 11). Nevertheless, the President deems Mr. Liakat Ali Alibux´s testimony on the criminal proceeding in which the alleged violation of his rights was allegedly committed to be useful and relevant to the resolution of the issues in this case. The Court recalls that the statements submitted by alleged victims and other persons with a direct interest in the case are useful, as they can provide more information regarding the alleged violations and their consequences.3 The President considers it fitting to receive his declaration, pursuant to Article 50(1) of the Rules of Procedure, according to which the Court shall summon all those who deems appropriate to a hearing, if necessary. The President will determine the object of Mr. Alibux´s testimony, as well as the manner in which this evidence shall be rendered by the Court (infra Operative para. 5). C. Witnesses Statements proposed by the State 12. The State offered the testimonies of Mr. S. Punwasi, acting as ProcuratorGeneral and of Mr. R.R. Venitiaan, former President of the Republic of Suriname, to be rendered through affidavits. The Commission stated that the list of declarants submitted by the State should be dismissed because it is time-barred and does not comply with the requirements set out in the Rules of Procedure. 13. The President finds that the State submitted its definitive list of declarants after it was time-barred, as those testimonies were not offered in its brief containing preliminary objections and the answer to the application, and given that the State did not include the object of those statements (supra Having Seen paras. 7 and 14). Nevertheless, the President deems Mr. S. Punwasi’s testimony, acting as ProcuratorGeneral, on the application of domestic law in the procedural and substantial matters 2 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para 81; Case of DaCosta Cadogan v. Barbados. Order of the President of Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Order of May 18, 2009, Operative para. 7. 3 Cf. Case “Masacre de Pueblo Bello” V. Colombia. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 29 of 2005, Considering Clause seven, and Case of “Masacres de el Mozote y lugares aledaños” V. El Salvador, Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 22, 2012, Considering Clause nine.