B) Decision of the President to dismiss the objections of the State against the proposed expert witnesses 15. In its response, the State manifested that “it is opposed to the expert testimonies proposed by the Inter-American Commission and by the representatives […], and contests the proposed areas of expertise” because these opinions treat “on the questions debated in the proceedings, and which are the exclusive jurisdiction of the judges of the Honorable Court.” This opposition was reiterated in its observations on the final list of deponents, with basis in that “the description of the international standards which would eventually be asked of the expert witnesses proposed by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives of the alleged victim have originated and been developed in a progressive manner by the very jurisprudence of [the] Honorable Court called to resolve the present case.” Argentina emphasized that “[t]he importance of expert opinion is made manifest in the circumstance that the judge, despite being an expert in law, is generally not an expert in other sciences, and may not be knowledgeable about matters of art, mechanics, and numerous practical activities that require specialized study or ample experience.” According to the State, “it is clearly unnecessary to produce evidence which, under the limits set by the parties concerning the proposed points of expertise, could not provide new information or arguments to help resolve the case under review.” 16. In his Order, the President declared the abovementioned objections against the three proposed expert witnesses inadmissible.5 On the matter, the president found that, even though the proposed experts in this case are lawyers, as this is an international process what is important is whether, in accordance with the information provided, these experts possess specialized legal knowledge in criminal law and criminal procedure, and of the Argentine legal system in those areas; which, when applied to the points in dispute between the parties, can be useful in the analysis this international human rights tribunal will carry out on the merits of this case. In a great many cases, the Court has admitted and utilized the expert opinions of lawyers versed in specific areas or topics of law that could be of use in the Court’s efforts to determine whether or not a violation of human rights had occurred.6 17. In its appeal of the Order of the President, the State affirms that it considers that “the expert testimony is not only unnecessary, but also inappropriate” generally; however, in its specific allegations it objected only to the admission of the expert testimony of Mr. Alberto Bovino, by virtue of the following arguments: a) In accordance with that which was decided upon by the President in allowing the expert opinion of Alberto Bovino, Mr. Bovino should limit his testimony to the international standards that are the jurisdiction of the [H]onorable Court, and dispense with his special knowledge of criminal law, criminal procedures, and Argentine law, and b) “Despite the argument employed by the President of the Court to dismiss the objection to the expert testimony filed by the State, the expert witness has not been requested to comment with respect to criminal law, or criminal procedure, or the Argentine criminal process– specialties that may be outside of the judges’ 5 Considering clauses 26 and 27. 6 Cf., inter alia, Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 47; Case of Atala Riffo and Children v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 17, and Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, para. 11. 5