3 para. 12); and the State offered the testimony of Mr. S. Punwasi and Mr. R.R. Venitiaan extemporaneously (supra Having Seen para. 14). 3. The Inter-American Commission, the representative, and the State were given the right of defense with regard to the evidentiary proposals made by each of the parties at different procedural junctures (supra Having Seen paras. 10 to 15) 4. The Inter-American Commission made observations to the list of declarants submitted by the State (supra Having Seen para. 15). Neither the representatives nor the State made observations or objections to the Commission's definite list of declarants (supra Having Seen paras. 6 to 12). 5. In this Order, the President will consider: a) the admissibility of the expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission; b) the admissibility of the statement by the alleged victim; c) the admissibility of the list of witnesses proposed by the State; d) the form in which declarations and expert evidence will be received, if applicable, and e) the oral and written allegations and final observations. A. Expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission 6. 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 Inter-American public order of human rights is affected in a significant manner,” the object of which must be adequately founded. This provision means that the appointment of expert witnesses by the Commission is an exceptional opportunity that is subject to a requirement that is not satisfied by the mere fact that the item of evidence to be received is related to an alleged human rights violation. The “InterAmerican public order of human rights must be affected in a significant manner,” and it falls upon the Commission to show that such a situation exists.1 7. In its communication of January 20, 2012, the Inter-American Commission offered the expert testimony of Mr. Héctor Olásolo, regarding the scope of the principle of non ex post facto application of criminal law under international human rights law. The testimony was to be rendered before the Court during the public hearing in this case. 8. Neither the State nor the representative submitted observations to the expert testimony offered by the Commission. 9. The Commission argued that the expert testimony relates to issues of InterAmerican public interest because it represents an opportunity for the Court to rule on the predictability of criminal prosecution against the backdrop of the American Convention. Furthermore, the case raises a new aspect of law in terms of the scope of the provision on freedom from ex post facto laws. The Commission also considered that in the present case the violation of the right to fair trial and judicial protection stemmed from the enforcement of the rule establishing the prosecution of senior officials in a single instance and the failure to implement the constitutional norm governing constitutional control which mandated the creation of a Constitutional Court. 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, Considering Clause nine, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al (“In Vitro fertilization”) V. Costa Rica. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 6, 2012, Considering Clause twenty four.