H) Admissibility of the expert opinion offered by the Commission 84. Article 35(1)(f) of the Rules provides for the “possible appointment of expert witnesses” by the Inter-American Commission, with due justification of the grounds and object of such appointment “when the inter-American public order of human rights is affected in a significant manner.” The implication of this provision is that the appointment of expert witnesses by the Commission is an exceptional circumstance, subject to that requirement, which is not satisfied by the mere fact that the evidence to be produced is related to an alleged human rights violation. The “inter-American public order of human rights” must be “affected in a significant manner”, and it is up to the Commission to justify that situation.” 39This Presidency has understood that, to comply with said regulatory requirement, the object of the expert opinion proposed by the Commission must not be limited to the situation or legal system of the country in question and must transcend the specific facts of the case before the Court, as well as the specific interests of the parties in litigation. 40 85. As to the possible connection between the object of Mr. José Zeitune’s expert opinion (supra Considering para. 79) and the inter-American public order, the Commission considers that “it would contribute to the analysis of the effects of provisional justice on the right to judicial independence, from a perspective that has not yet been explored in the Court’s jurisprudence.” It added that, although the Court has referred to provisional justice, this case provides an opportunity to analyze this situation “as to the specific effects on the right to due process, specifically to an independent judge [,] of a person subject to a criminal proceeding.” 86. The President considers that the object of Mr. Zeitune’s expert opinion is relevant to the inter-American public order because it involves an analysis of international standards on judicial independence, particularly those related to the stability of the position, from the perspective of the defendant’s rights in a criminal proceeding to the guarantees of due process and judicial protection. Thus, the object of the expert opinion transcends the issue in dispute in this case and refers to concepts that are relevant to other States Parties to the Convention. I) Request by the Commission to submit questions to three expert witnesses offered by the representatives 87. In its observations to the definitive lists, the Commission requested “the opportunity to formulate verbal or written questions, insofar as these are relevant and reasonable,” to Messrs. Alberto Arteaga Sánchez, Antonio Canova González and Rafael Chavero Gazdik, proposed by the representatives of the alleged victim. The Commission stated, inter alia, that those expert opinions “are directly related to matters of inter39 Cf. Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Court of December 23, 2010, Considering para. 9, and Case of Camba Campos et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Court of February 15, 2013, Considering para. 11. 40 Cf. Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Court of June 4, 2012, Considering para. 37, and Case Norin Catriman et al. (Lonkos, leaders and activists of the of the Mapuche Indigenous People) V. Chile. Order of the President of the Court of April 30, 2013, Considering para. 26. 25