to the rules of sound judicial discretion. Based on the foregoing, the President finds it appropriate to admit the said evidence and will determine the purpose of the expert opinion, in the operative paragraphs of this Order (infra operative paragraph 5). c) Expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission 13. Under Article 35(1)(f) of the Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Commission can decide on the “possible appointment of expert witnesses” “when the inter-American public order of human rights is affected in a significant manner,” and the grounds and purpose must be adequately founded. This provision means that the designation of expert witnesses by the Commission is exceptional, and is subject to the said requirement, which is not met merely because the expert opinion that it is intended to provide relates to an alleged human rights violation. The “inter-American public order of human rights” must be “affected in a significant manner,” and the Commission must substantiate this situation.5 14. In the instant case, the Commission offered the expert opinion of Hernán Gullco to testify on “the Argentine legal framework that regulates civil actions against the State, the procedural stages and time frames, including the execution of a favorable judgment ordering the State to make reparation.” The Commission added that “the expert opinion will refer to whether a prompt or differentiated treatment is provided under the said proceedings when the interests at stake require a response in order to protect fundamental rights.” In addition, the expert witness will refer to “the main problems that result in the delay in the decisions and in the implementation of any reparations ordered in light of the State’s international obligations.” 15. The Commission underlined that this expert opinion is related to inter-American public order, because, “apart from describing the situation in Argentina, it will provide essential information about the main problems that lead to delays in judicial decisions and in the implementation of any reparations ordered in light of the State’s international obligations,” and “will provide information about the principles of effective judicial protection and the remedies the courts can adopt in the proceedings in order to assure the effective enjoyment of rights.” The Commission indicated that “these standards go beyond the situation of the victims in the instant case, and can have an impact on how similar situations in other States of the region are addressed,” while permitting the establishment of “more specific standards” with regard to the matter that is the purpose of the expert opinion. 16. The President notes that the purpose of the proposed expert opinion concerns civil procedural regulations in Argentina; in particular the procedural stages and the execution of judgments in that country. The said purpose is limited to the particular situation of Argentina and, consequently, it is not related to inter-American public order. Therefore, the expert opinion of Hernán Gullco, offered by the Inter-American Commission based on effects on the inter-American public order, is not admissible. 17. Nevertheless, the purpose of the testimony of the said expert witness could provide the Court with useful information for examining the case submitted to its consideration with regard to civil actions against the State and the execution of judicial decisions in Argentina. Consequently, based on the provisions of Article 58(a) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the 5 Cf. Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Court of December 23, 2010, ninth considering paragraph; Case of Torres et al. v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Court of April 29, 2011, eighth considering paragraph, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Order of the President of the Court of June 1, 2011, seventh considering paragraph. 5