[…] 3. Expert in chain of custody. The expert opinion given by an expert on chain of custody, is aimed at showing that the evidence used in the first and second criminal proceedings to convict members of the Colombian security forces for allegedly launching a AN-MIA2 device on the hamlet of Santo Domingo, were obtained without complying with protocols on chain of custody. [...] 4. High level expert on cassation. The statement of an expert of the highest level, is aimed at explaining to […] the Court the manner in which Colombia handles extraordinary appeals of cassation, its purpose, procedures, and aims. [...] 5. Expert report by an expert in forced displacement. The expert report given by an expert in forced displacement, is aimed at establishing and clarifying the issues related to the alleged violation of Article 22(1) of the Convention against the alleged victims by the Colombian State. Similarly, it should be noted that the intervention of a expert will facilitate obtaining accurate conclusions. Therefore, the expert evidence offered is relevant and useful. [...] 7. Subsidiary claim Under the circumstance that the principal claim is not admitted, the Colombian government very respectfully requests that if the Court itself so considers, it may provide the names of international experts, whether in regard to expert evidence on the matters set forth above or any others deemed relevant and necessary to achieve clarity and truth. In any event, the Colombian State will assume the costs of the expert witnesses that the Court orders ex oficio.” 6. In its final list of declarants, the State offered four expert witnesses and one witness, in order to render statements at the hearing and via affidavit. At that time, the State identified the persons it proposed as experts, provided their curriculum vitaes, and maintained the purpose of the reports that had been initially proposed. Moreover, the State reiterated its “subsidiary request.” (supra Considering clause. 5). 7. On its behalf, in the brief on observations to the final list, the representatives expressed that the offer of expert witnesses is contrary to the provisions of Article 41 of the Rules of Procedure and thus time-barred. They further expressed that the State sought to remedy this problem by seeking a subsidiary or alternative claim, which suggests, given the State’s negligence, that the Court officially decreed the expert nominated by the State as part of its regulatory power. Thus, the view ex oficio provides for the experts proposed by the State within the Court’s regulatory powers. Therefore, the representatives considered that the State renounced its request for expert witnesses, by not complying with the regulatory requirements of an offer. Secondly, they presented challenges and objections to those expert witnesses who were offered on the ground that there are impediments that affect their impartiality, and they do not have technical ability to render the expert reports. 8. Furthermore, the Commission stated that the mechanism used by the State for its appointment of experts is not established in the Rules of Procedure, and thus the evidence offered is time-barred, to which the State did not present any arguments, at any of the procedural opportunities it had, regarding the circumstances established in Article 57(2) regarding admissibility under exceptions. The Commission also argued that the alternative or subsidiary claim of the State does not comply with the Court’s exercise of the power regarding the seeking of evidence ex officio, as the only evidence offered would support its position in this case, and because an offer on its behalf to fund international experts "ex officio” could be problematic in light of the principle of equality of arms, since it is reasonable to infer that the representatives do not necessarily have the same opportunity to make such offer. 9. Pursuant to that established in Article 41(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, the opportune procedural moment for the presentation of expert evidence by the State is in its answer brief. In this case, the State did not identify in its answer those persons proposed as expert witnesses, but rather limited itself to arguing the necessity of the expert evidence, defining the purpose of the expert reports it proposed. During this opportunity, the State did not provide the curriculum vitaes; it expressed that it would provide them “as soon as 4