15. In this respect, the Presidency recalls the criteria established in the Rules of Procedure currently 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.5 16. In particular, 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 declarants proposed by the other parties, "if authorized by the Court upon receiving a well-grounded request therefor, when the Inter-American 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". Therefore, it is up to the Commission to present a well-founded reason to demonstrate there is a connection with the Inter-American public order or with the topic included in the statement in question, for the Court or its Presidency to assess the request in time fashion and, if applicable, to authorize the possibility for the Commission to interrogate. 17. The President notes that the object of the expert opinion of Michael Paul Hermann Mörth, offered by the representatives, refers to issues connected to this specific case and problems of the Guatemalan judiciary. However, in its observations to the definitive lists of the representatives and of the State, the Commission did not indicate how said expert opinion is connected to the issue of genocide about which the expert opinion to be rendered by Juan Mendez, offered by the Commission, will deal with (supra Considering clause 10 and infra Operative Paragraph 1) or to the InterAmerican public order. Therefore, the Commission’s request to interrogate expert witness Hermann Mörth is dismissed (supra Considering clause 14). C. Representatives’ request for statements of the alleged victims an interpreter in relation to the 18. The representatives requested the Court to allow the intervention of an interpreter due to the fact that "all witnesses shall render their statement in Maya Achí language". Therefore, the representatives proposed Mr. Tomás Marcelino Alonzo Teletor and submitted his curriculum vitae to the Court. 19. In view of the fact that nor the Inter-American Commission or the State objected to this request, having had the procedural opportunity to do so, and taking into account the characteristics of the case, the Presidency deems necessary to count on the intervention of Mr. Tomás Marcelino Alonzo Teletor to serve as a Maya Achí interpreter at the public hearing to be held in the instant case. Mr. Alonzo Teletor shall intervene during the statements of the alleged victims proposed by the representatives, according to this Order (infra Operative paragraphs 5 and 8). D. Receipt of the statements of the alleged victims and witness and of the expert opinions 5 See Case of Gonzalez Medina and next-of-kin v. Dominican Republic. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 3, 2011; considering clause forty-nine. Case of the El Mozote Massacre V. El Salvador. Order of the Court’s President, supra note 3, considering clause twenty-nine. 6