3 2. That the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State proposed the declaration of the alleged victim and expert evidence during the appropriate stage of the proceedings (supra Having Seen paras. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11). 3. That the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State were given the right of defense with regard to the evidentiary proposals made by each of the parties at different procedural junctures (supra Having Seen paras. 6 and 12 to 14). 4. That the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State made no observations or objections to the proposals submitted (supra Having Seen paras. 12 to 14). * * * 5. That this Presidency observes that the Commission and the representatives offered the “witness testimony” of Mr. Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan, who is the alleged victim in the present case. Pursuant to Article 50 of the Rules of Procedure applicable in the present case, this Presidency will consider his declaration not as witness testimony, but as a declaration by an alleged victim, to be assessed within the context of the case, taking into account the special characteristics of such declarations. 6. That this Presidency considers it fitting to receive the following declarations of the alleged victim and the expert witnesses that were proposed by the parties at the proper stage of the proceedings and have not been objected to, so that the Tribunal can assess their evidentiary value within the context of the body of evidence in the case and according to the rules of sound judgment: Mr. Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan, whose declaration as an alleged victim was proposed by the Commission and the representatives; Dr. Timothy Green, Professor Nigel Eastman, and Edward Fitzgerald QC, proposed by the representatives as expert witnesses; and Mr. Anthony V. Grant and Dr. Brian MacLachlan, proposed by the State as expert witnesses. This Presidency will determine the object of the aforementioned declaration of the alleged victim and the expert witnesses’ declarations, as well as the manner in which said evidence shall be received by the Court (infra Considering Paragraphs 9 to 11 and Operative Paragraph 1). 7. That the State offered the expert testimony of Mr. Anthony Blackman extemporaneously, since that testimony was not offered in its brief containing preliminary objections, the answer to the application, and observations to the representatives’ brief (supra Having Seen paras. 4 and 11). Nevertheless, because the parties did not object to this evidence (supra Having Seen paras. 12 to 14 and Considering Paragraph 4), and because this Presidency deems Mr. Blackman’s expert testimony on “the law and procedure related to the defence of diminished responsibility” to be useful and relevant to the 2 resolution of the issues in the present case regarding the imposition of the death penalty, this Presidency considers it fitting to receive his declaration, pursuant to Article 47(1) of the Rules of Procedure, so that that the Tribunal can assess its evidentiary value within the context of the body of evidence in the case and according to the rules of sound judgment. This Presidency will determine the object of Mr. Blackman’s expert testimony, as well as the manner in which said evidence shall be received by the Court (infra Considering Paragraph 12 and Operative Paragraph 1). 2 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 81; Case of Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 41, and Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 58.