submit their written observations to the preliminary objections filed by the State in its answer brief. 6. The Order of the President of the Court of September 14, 2012 (hereinafter “Order of the President”), in which he declared admissible the victims’ request to have access to the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of the Court (hereinafter “Legal Assistance Fund”) and granted financial assistance for the presentation of a maximum of four testimonies, to be rendered either by affidavit or at a public hearing. 7. The briefs of October 11 and 13, 2012, in which the Commission and the representative submitted, respectively, their observations to the preliminary objections filed by the State of Ecuador. 8. The notes of the Secretariat of October 19, 2012, in which, pursuant to Article 46(1) of the Rules of the Court, the State, the representative and the Inter-American Commission were asked to forward their respective definitive lists of deponents (hereinafter “definitive lists”) and, for reasons of procedural economy, to indicate which deponents could render their statements by affidavit and which deponents should be summoned to testify at a public hearing. 9. The briefs of November 1 and 5, 2012, in which the State and the Commission, respectively, forwarded their definitive lists. The State pointed out that the three experts proposed in its answer brief should be summoned to render their statements at a hearing. Moreover, it substituted one of the expert witnesses proposed, without altering the object of the expert opinion. For its part, the Commission confirmed its offer of one expert witness. The representative did not submit his definitive list. 10. The notes of the Secretariat of November 9, 2012, in which, pursuant to Article 46 of the Rules of the Court and following the instructions of its President, the parties and the Commission were granted a period until November 20, 2012 to submit observations to the respective lists. 11. The brief of November 20, 2012, in which the Commission stated that it had no observations to make regarding the list of deponents offered by the representative. It also pointed out that the State did not justify the substitution of the expert witness requested. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. The offer and admission of evidence, together with the summons of alleged victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, are regulated in Articles 35(1)(f), 40(2)(c), 41(1)(c) , 46, 50, 57 and 58 of the Rules of the Court. 2. The Court guaranteed the parties the right of defense in respect of the offers of evidence contained in their brief submitting the case and in the pleadings and motions and answer briefs, as well as in their definitive lists (supra Having Seen 10). 3. In this Order the President will address the following aspects: a) the expert opinion offered by the Inter-American Commission; b) the statements of witnesses and expert witnesses offered by the representative and the State ; c) the request by 2