CONSIDERING THAT: 1. The offer and admission of evidence, as well as the summons of alleged victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, are regulated by Articles 35(1)(f), 40(2)(c), 41(1)(c), 46, 47, 48, 50, 57 and 60 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 2. The Commission offered as evidence three expert opinions and the representatives offered the statements of 17 alleged victims and also three expert opinions. The evidence was offered at the appropriate procedural moment (supra having seen paragraphs 1 and 6). For its part, the State did not offer any testimonial or expert evidence (supra having seen paragraph 8). 3. The Court has guaranteed the parties the right to defense regarding the offers of evidence in the brief submitting the case, in the pleadings and motions brief, and in the final lists of deponents (supra having seen paragraph 12). Neither the Inter-American Commission nor the representatives formulated observations on the final lists of deponents. 4. For its part, the State did not present observations on the final lists of deponents presented by the Commission and the representative (supra having seen paragraphs 11 and 15). However, in its answering brief, it contested testimonial and expert evidence offered by the Commission and the representative when submitting the case and in the pleadings and motions brief, respectively (supra having seen paragraphs 1 and 6). The President observes that the contested evidence was confirmed by the Commission and the representative when presenting their final lists of deponents. Therefore, the President will take these objections into consideration in this Order. The following aspects will be addressed below: (a) expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission; (b) testimonial and expert evidence offered by the representative; (c) the Inter-American Commission’s request to question one of the expert witnesses offered by the representative; (d) method for receiving the statements of the presumed victims and the expert opinions; (e) application of the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund, and (f) final oral and written observations and arguments. A. Expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission 5. According to Article 35(1)(f) of the Rules of Procedure, the “possible appointment of expert witnesses” may be made by the Inter-American Commission “when the interAmerican public order of human rights is affected in a significant manner,” and the grounds and purpose must be adequately substantiated. This provision means that the appointment of experts by the Commission is exceptional and subject to this requirement, which is not complied with by the mere fact that the evidence that it is intended to produce is related to an alleged violation of human rights. “The inter-American public order of human rights [must be] affected in a significant manner,” and the Commission must substantiate this situation.1 6. The Inter-American Commission offered as evidence the expert opinions of: (a) Miguel Cillero Bruñol, to testify on “the international human rights standards concerning juvenile criminal justice, including the principle of the specificity of the applicable substantive and procedural norms; the imposition of deprivation of liberty as a measure of last resort and for the shortest time possible; the inadmissibility of imposing life sentences                                                              1 Cf. Case of Pedro Miguel Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 23, 2010, ninth considering paragraph, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 5, 2012, twenty-third considering paragraph. 3