20. As to the expert opinion of Mr. Kepfer Rodríguez, the President considers that the State’s argument that he has not provided assistance or treatment to the victim’s family, is a hypothesis that could affect the evidentiary value or weight of the proposed opinion, but not its admissibility and subsequent assessment by the Court. Consequently, the President admits the aforesaid expert opinion, in accordance with the object and manner specified in the operative section of this Order. 21. Regarding the State’s alleged objection to Mr. Nájera Ochoa’s expert opinion, the President considers that for this to be admissible it must be based on one of the grounds established in Article 48(1) of the Rules of Procedure, which state the following: 1. An expert witness may be disqualified based on the following grounds: a. he or she is a relative by blood, affinity or adoption, up to the fourth degree, of one of the alleged victims; b. he or she is or has been a representative of an alleged victim in proceedings regarding the facts before the Court, either at the domestic level or before the Inter-American System for the promotion and protection of human rights; c. he or she currently has, or has had, close ties with the proposing party, and the Court considers that his or her impartiality may be affected; d. he or she is, or has been, an officer of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights with knowledge of the contentious case in which his or her expert opinion is required; e. he or she is or has been an Agent of the respondent State in the contentious case in which his or her expert opinion is required; f. he or she has previously intervened, in any capacity and before any organ, whether national or international, in relation to the same case. 22. In this regard, the President notes that the State did not base its challenge on any of the grounds established in the aforementioned article, and thus it is not considered as such, but rather as an observation on Mr. Nájera’s possible lack of expertise, since according to the State he would not be familiar with the procedures on which he is being summoned to testify, given that there are now new protocols and procedures in place, different to those that existed when he worked at the National Institute of Forensic Sciences. 23. Pursuant to Article 50(1) 10 of the Rules of the Court, the President notes that the State’s objections refer to matters of evidentiary value and not of admissibility of the evidence. 11 Thus, as he has done previously 12, the President considers that at the present procedural moment it is not appropriate to rule on the validity of the content of an expert opinion as it relates to the facts of this case. Therefore, to ensure the proper conduct of this 10 Article 50(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure states: “The Court or its Presidency shall issue an order deciding on the observations, objections and challenges presented, as applicable, defining the object of the statement of each of the declarants; requiring the submission of the affidavits deemed appropriate; and summoning all those that the Court deems appropriate to a hearing, if necessary.” 11 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 43, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of November 2, 2011, Considering para. 13. 12 Cf. Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Order of the acting President of the Inter-American Court of September 28, 2010, Considering para. 14, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, supra, Considering para. 13. 8