proposed to testify on “the events that led to the Coup d’ Etat of April 11, 2002, and the drafting of the ‘Decree of Democratic Transition and National Unity’.” Mr. Gonzalo Gómez Freite, a journalist, was offered to testify on “the events that occurred on April 11, 12 and 13, 2002[, a]nd, the role of the alternative community-based media, due to the information blackout in the media.” Mr. Ángel Palacios, an audiovisual and documentary producer, was proposed to refer to “the events of April 11, 12 and 13, 2002.” 62. From the objects of the statements of three witnesses proposed it is clear that these refer to alleged facts that may be considered related to the “Background” described by the Commission in the chapter on “Findings of fact” (Chapter IV.A) of its Report on Merits No. 171/11. The President considers it necessary to recall that it is up to the Court, at the appropriate procedural moment, to determine the context and facts of this case, together with the legal consequences arising from these, after considering the arguments of the parties and assessing the evidence presented, according to the rules of sound judgment. 27 The observations and objections of the representatives in relation to certain arguments and evidence offered by the State, shall be duly assessed by the Court. 63. Therefore, as on previous occasions, 28 the President considers that this is not the appropriate procedural stage to take the decision to exclude evidence used by the State to contextualize or define the facts and claims presented by the Commission and the representatives. Thus, for the proper conduct of the proceeding, the President shall require any evidence that could, in principle, be relevant, having regard to the arguments put forward by parties and what they seek to prove, without this implying a decision or a prejudgment as to the possible merits of the case. The evidence and arguments that form part of the State’s position in this proceeding shall be considered and assessed by the Court in due course. 29 Nevertheless, this Presidency recalls that any questions asked of those witnesses must take into account the sphere of competence of the Inter-American Court, which is not a criminal Court and which, if it were to examine the merits of the case, would have to decide whether or not the State is responsible for violating the human rights of Mr. Brewer Carías, the alleged victim in the case before this Court. 64. Based on the foregoing, the President admits the statements of Julián Isaías Rodríguez, Gonzalo Gómez Freite and Ángel Palacios, proposed by the State at the proper procedural stage. The value of such statements shall be assessed in due course, within the context of the existing body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. The object of these statements and the manner in which they shall be received will be decided in the operative section of this Order (infra Operative paras. 1 and 5). 27 Cf. Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Order of the President of the Court of December 22, 2009, Considering para. 14; Case González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic . Order of the President of the Court of June 3, 2011, Considering para. 17; Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Order of the President of the Court of January 25, 2012, Considering para. 25, and Case of J. v. Peru. Order of the Acting President of the Court of April 16, 2013, Considering para. 17. 28 Cf. Case of Gelman V. Uruguay. Order of the President of the Court of September 23, 2010, Having Seen 2, Considering para. 6; Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador . Order of the President of the Court of April 14, 2011, Considering paras. 16 to 18; Case González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic. Order of the President of the Court of June 3, 2011, Considering para. 17; Case Artavia Murillo et al. (“Fertilization in vitro”) v. Costa Rica. Order of the President of the Court of August 6, 2012, Considering paras. 6 and 7, and Case J. v. Peru . Order of the Acting President of the Court of April 16, 2013, Considering para. 45. 29 Cf. Case of González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic . Order of the President of the Court of June 3, 2011, Considering para. 17, and Case of J. v. Peru . Order of the Acting President of the Court of April 16, l 2013, Considering para. 45. 20