27. Specifically, it is pertinent to recall the provisions of Article 50(5) of the Rules of Procedure, which establish that “the alleged victims or their representatives, the respondent State, and, if applicable, the petitioning State may formulate questions in writing for the declarants offered by the opposing party and, if applicable, by the Commission who have been convened by the Court to render their statements by affidavit,” which must be read in conjunction with Article 52(3) of the Rules of Procedure, which establishes the possibility that the Commission may examine the expert witnesses presented by the other parties, “if authorized by the Court upon receiving a well-grounded request therefor, when the interAmerican public order of human rights is affected in a significant manner and the statement in question regards a topic included in the statement of an expert witness offered by the Commission.” Thus, in each case, the Commission must substantiate the connection to both inter-American public order, and the subject-matter of an expert opinion it is offering, so that the Court or its President can assess the request opportunely and, if appropriate, authorize the Commission to pose questions. 28. The President observes that some aspects of the connection between the request to pose questions and inter-American public order are related to the purpose of the expert opinion of Hernán Gullco, proposed by the Commission. In this regard, the President reiterates his previous considerations when ruling that the said expert opinion was inadmissible, that its purpose does not appear to encompass information, knowledge or parameters relating to the protection of human rights that could have a relevant effect on inter-American public order. The President refers to the considerations expressed supra in this regard, and finds that it is not appropriate to analyze this aspect of the Commission’s request. 29. With regard to the relationship between the proposed expert opinion of Mr. Moreno and the purpose of Alejandro Morlachetti’s expert opinion, the President finds that the purpose of Mr. Moreno’s expert opinion relates to domestic law on civil and commercial procedure, which does not relate to inter-American public interest; consequently, the Commission’s request to pose questions to expert witness Moreno is not admissible. 30. The Commission also asked to question María Laura Subies with regard to the decision mechanisms and practices [of the courts]” in cases related to children with disabilities, given that “her expert opinion will refer to matters of inter-American public interest, particularly to some points included in Mr. Morlachetti’s expert opinion.” 31. Regarding the relationship between the expert opinions of Ms. Subies and Mr. Morlachetti, the President emphasizes his considerations with regard to the purpose of Mr. Morlachetti’s opinion to the effect that it relates to inter-American public order (supra considering paragraph 20). From comparing the purposes of the two expert opinions, the President concludes that both of them analyze relevant aspects of the rights of children with disabilities; thus, in accordance with Articles 50(5) and 52(3), the Commission may pose questions to expert witness Subies, whose expert opinion will be received at the public hearing, given that the said questions could be relevant to inter-American public order. e) Use of the Assistance Fund 32. The Order issued by the President on November 23, 2011 (supra having seen paragraph 6), declared the request filed by the inter-American defenders to access the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Court admissible. Accordingly, he declared that the required financial assistance would be granted to cover the reasonable and necessary costs that had been and would be authenticated by the defenders in order to 8