decisions by the Court and reports by the Commission on Decree Law No. 25475, which is the object of this expert opinion, “the Peruvian State carried out a comprehensive internal process of legal review and reform which has been reported on several occasions, both to the Commission and to the Court, [and] has also been the subject of extensive analysis by both inter-American organs. The State added that, in its view, this expert opinion goes beyond an analysis of this case, and should therefore be rejected.” It further argued that “in this case, that legislation was not applied substantively to the petitioner; she was tried for crimes defined in the Criminal Code in force at the time– which were maintained because criminal law is applicable over time - and although it is true that some procedural aspects were applied in the investigation, the process was subsequently declared null and void and remedied with the reforms mentioned.” The State added that the object of the expert opinion is “clearly limited to the specific situation of the Peruvian State, without […] significantly affecting the inter-American public order, since it does not transcend the specific interests of the instant case.” 36. First of all, the Court points out that the questions regarding whether Mrs. J was a victim of sexual violence or rape, as well as whether Decree Law No. 25475 was applied to her, are factual matters that the Court shall determine at the appropriate procedural moment (supra Considering para. 17). As to the possible relevance for the inter-American public order of the expert opinions proposed by the Commission, the acting President considers that the expert opinion of Mrs. Viseur Sellers transcends the concerns and object of this case, inasmuch as it is not limited to the specific situation of Peru and seeks to encompass legal aspects related to “the different forms of sexual violence and their characterization in light of international human rights law.” The acting President also considers that the expert opinion of Mrs. Viseur Sellers could help to strengthen, clarify and understand in greater detail the international standards regarding the different forms of sexual violence. Accordingly, the acting President considers it pertinent to admit the expert opinion of Mrs. Viseur Sellers, in accordance with the object and in the manner determined in the operative part of this Order (infra Operative para. 5), and recalls that the value of said expert opinion shall be assessed at the proper procedural moment, within the context of the existing body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. 37. In relation to Mr. Trechsel, the acting President notes that, contrary to the State’s arguments, the object of his expert opinion is not limited to the Peruvian situation or legal system. Although upon justifying the relevance of said expert opinion to the inter-American public order the Commission mentioned the possible effects on the Peruvian legal system, it also referred to the impact it could have “on other States in the region in relation to the crime of terrorism”. In this regard, the acting President considers that the aforesaid expert opinion may contribute to strengthen the standards of protection of the Inter-American System of Human Rights in relation to criminal due process, in the context of legal frameworks designed to prosecute and punish terrorism, which is also relevant to other States Parties to the Convention. Therefore, the acting President considers that the object of the expert opinion to be offered by Mr. Stefan Trechsel transcends the specific facts of this case and the specific interests of the parties in litigation, and is therefore of relevance and interest to the inter-American public order. Consequently, he deems it appropriate to admit his statement, in accordance with the object and manner defined in the operative section of this Order (infra Operative para. 5), and recalls that the value of said expert opinion shall be assessed at the proper procedural moment, within the context of the existing body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. H. Request by the Commission to submit questions to the four expert witnesses offered by the State 11