19. The Commission indicated that it had no objections to make in that regard. The representatives requested the Court to clarify whether the declarants proposed by the State would act in the capacity of expert witnesses or witnesses. They indicated that both of them are subordinates of the State since they are civil servants and both of them had intervened, at the domestic level, in the instant case, which may affect their impartiality (supra Having Seen clause 11). However, they considered that they may provide valuable information to shed light on the violations committed in the instant case, for which they requested the Court to admit them as witnesses in order to render a statement. 20. In the first place, this Presidency notes that, even though the State made changes in the first part of the object of the expert opinion of Mr. Marco Tulio Álvarez Bobadilla and eliminated a word from the expert opinion of Manuel Giovanni Vásquez Vicente, said modifications were formal and they do not alter their content. In the second place, even though in the brief containing the answer, the State referred to the offering of said statements as expert evidence, in the definitive list, it referred to them as “declarants". In this respect, this Presidency notes that, from the objects of said statements, it spring that those persons shall render a statement about facts and circumstances they know for a fact, for which their statements shall be received as testimonies and not expert opinions. Consequently, the Presidency admits the testimony of Manuel Giovanni Vásquez Vicente and Marco Tulio Alvarez Bobadilla and recalls that the value of said testimonies shall be assessed in time fashion, within the context of the existing body of evidence and on the basis of sound judgment. The object and receipt of said statements shall be defined in the operative paragraphs of this Order (infra Operative Paragraphs 1 and 5). 21. In relation to the request of the Inter-American Commission to interrogate Mr. Vásquez Vicente and Álvarez Bobadilla, the President recalls the criteria established in the Rules of Procedure in force as to the receipt of the statements proposed by the Commission, as well as in relation to the Commission's power to interrogate the declarants offered by the other parties.4 22. Particularly, in accordance with the terms of article 50.5 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, together with article 52.3 thereof, the Commission has the possibility of interrogating the expert witnesses proposed by the other parties once certain conditions have been fulfilled. However, the Rules of Procedure does not stipulate that witnesses, proposed by the State or the representatives, may be questioned by the Commission; therefore, it is not pertinent to admit the request made by the Inter-American Commission regarding the possibility of interrogating. D. Receipt of statements and expert opinions 23. It is necessary to ensure the most complete presentation of the facts and arguments of the parties in order to appropriately solve the issues at dispute, guaranteeing the parties the right to defend their own positions as well as the possibility of adequately dealing with the cases submitted to the consideration of the Court, bearing in mind that the number of cases is considerable higher than before and it is constantly increasing. Moreover, it is necessary to guarantee a reasonable term in the length of the proceeding, as required by the right to an effective access to justice. Based on the foregoing, it is essential to receive the higher number of testimonies and expert opinions rendered through affidavits 4 See Case of Gonzalez Medina and next-of-kin v. Dominican Republic. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Considering clause forty-eight. Case of Castillo Gonzalez et al V. Venezuela, Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 31, 2012; Considering clause twenty-one. 7