9. The Commission understood that these expert opinions would refer to aspects of the inter-American public order, while the expert opinion of Elizabeth Salmón would address “issues related to standards of due process applicable in cases of violence against women, and those related to the obligation of States to investigate cases wherein the victim is a child, based on the principle of the best interests of the child and on international standards related to the rights of women and girls,” and the expert opinion of Elisa Portillo Nájera would address “the relationship between this specific case and the context of violence against women in that country (Guatemala); between violence and discrimination based on gender; and between a context of violence and discrimination, and the structural failings reflected in the lack of an effective judicial response.” The Commission considered that “it would be important to present information on the relationship between those factors and the obstacles faced by family members in this and other cases in their efforts to obtain justice and the continuing situation of impunity.” 10. The representatives did not raise any objections to the two expert opinions offered by the Commission (supra Having Seen 4). For its part, the State affirmed that it “understands that the expert witnesses [proposed by the Commission] have extensive experience and knowledge of the issues on which their expert opinions [are] sought.” However, “the topics [on which] they will provide their expert opinions are the same as those proposed by the [representatives]; thus, the expert evidence becomes abundant and excessive, affecting the principle of procedural economy” (cursive in the original text). Also, in relation to the proposed expert opinion of Elizabeth Salmón, it noted that “this would address the same [issues] as the [expert opinions of] María Eugenia Solís García and Ana Carcedo Cabañas”, proposed by the representatives (infra Considering paras 15 to 17), and added that “the State [and the Court are perfectly aware of the obligations and duties assumed by the States. There is no need for an expert witness to discuss this in relation to a particular case.” It also pointed out that the “importance of the investigation”, a topic that would be covered by the expert opinion proposed, “is not a disputed fact […] and therefore the expert opinion in question is not necessary.” As to the expert opinion of Elisa Portillo Nájera, the State asserted that it is “not necessary” since “it will consider the context the instant case” and “the C[ommission] and the [representatives …] in their Report on the Merits and brief of [p]leadings [and m] otions […] have already provided a comprehensive presentation of [this]”. 11. With regard to the expert opinion offered by Elisa Portillo Nájera, the President notes that, despite the observations made by the Commission concerning its possible links with the inter-American public order, its object is substantially and specifically limited to the particular situation of Guatemala, since it refers, among other points, to the relationship between “this specific case and the context of violence against women [and impunity] in that country.” Therefore, it is not appropriate to admit the expert opinion of Elisa Portillo Nájera. 12. With regard to the expert opinion of Elizabeth Salmón, the President considers that her expert opinion may contribute to strengthen the capacity of the Inter-American System of Human Rights to provide protection on matters of international standards on the duty to investigate cases of violence against women and girls. This transcends the specific interests of the parties in the case and may have an impact on situations that arise in other States Parties to the Convention 5, thereby generating interest relevant to the inter-American public 5 Cf. Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of January 27, 2012, Considering para. 9, and Case of Camba Campos et al. v. Ecuador, supra, Considering para. 22. 5