on adolescents with a disproportionate amount of time passing before release, among other aspects[, and on] Argentina’s legal framework for juvenile criminal justice in light of the said standards”; (b) Alberto Bovino, to testify on the “scope of the right established in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, particularly with regard to the exclusion a priori of the possibility of reviewing issues of fact and evidence owing to the apparent conflict between the principles of certain criminal procedural systems and the right to appeal a judgment,” and (c) Lawrence O. Gostin to testify on the “applicable international human rights standards with regard to mental health in detention centers, and the State’s obligations arising from these standards.” 7. In its communication of July 3, 2012 (supra having seen paragraph 11), in which the Commission submitted its final list of deponents, it indicated that the expert opinion of Miguel Cillero Bruñol would be very useful owing to “the conceptual elements” that it can offer, as outlined, contributing to “addressing an innovative issue in the jurisprudence” of the Court that could have “an impact on the institutional and legal policies of other States” in the region. Furthermore, the Commission considered that the purpose of the statement has a relevant impact on the inter-American public order of human rights. With regard to the expert opinion of Alberto Bovino, the Commission emphasized that this offers the Court the opportunity to “rule on the apparent conflict between the principles of the criminal procedural systems of an accusatory nature” in Argentina and other countries in the region, and the scope of the right to an extensive review, taking into account that “the limitations with regard to the review based on an appeal for annulment in the instant case occurred owing to the alleged persistence of a legal framework and judicial practice that remains incompatible with the scope and content of the right established in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention.” Lastly, the Commission indicated that the expert opinion of Lawrence O. Gostin would enable the Court to “develop relevant standards on the State’s obligations in relation to the mental health of those who are in its custody, and its special position of guarantor of their life and personal integrity.” 8. In the answering brief (supra having seen paragraph 8) the State contested the expert evidence offered by the Commission because the latter “attempts to obtain an opinion on matters being debated in these proceedings that are the exclusive competence of the judges” of the Court. The State referred to the nature and characteristics of expert evidence and, lastly, indicated that “the expert opinions are questionable, because the answers required from the expert witness are those that should be given by the judges of the Court, since they have the greatest expertise to decide on this matter.” 9. In this regard, the President considers that, even though the expert witnesses have law degrees, since these are international proceedings, the relevant point is that, according to the information provided, they have specialized legal knowledge on criminal, juvenile criminal, and procedural criminal matters and the right to health that, applied to the elements on which the parties are in dispute, may be used for this international human rights court’s analysis of the merits of the instant case. In many cases, the Inter-American Court has admitted and used expert opinions of jurists with knowledge of specific matters or areas of law that may be relevant for the Court to decide whether or not there has been a violation of human rights.2 Consequently, the State’s objection is inadmissible. 10. The President also finds that the expert opinion of Miguel Cillero Bruñol would provide the Court with more information to rule, in contentious proceedings, on the scope of                                                              2 Cf., inter alia, Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 47 and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 18, 2012, sixteenth considering paragraph. 4