the Rules of Procedure and provides that the statement of Mrs. Salmón be rendered by way of an affidavit, pursuant to the purpose and manner established in the operative part. e) Request of the State to reject the two expert witnesses offered by the representatives 20. The State argued that upon comparing the purposes of the expert opinions of Mr. Carlos Lopez and Mr. Jose Quiroga, proposed by the representatives in their brief containing pleadings and motions and their final list, “serious differences are evident.” It argued that the opportunity to present the purpose of the expert statements is defined in Article 40(c) of the Rules of Procedure and, in the light of Article 46 thereof, the final list of declarants is just a confirmation or retraction of the evidence offered in a timely manner in the brief containing pleadings and motions. Therefore, the State objected to such claims as it considered they were time-barred, to the extent that the purpose described in the final list implies a change to the purpose thereby openly contravening the rules of procedure, which means it is inadmissible and must be rejected. 21. In this regard, the President considers that, as affirmed by the State, the presentation of the final list of declarants does not imply an opportunity to modify the purpose of the statements originally offered. In turn, a proposal for modification of the purpose of a statement does not necessarily invalidate the possibility of receiving or hearing this statement, so long as it has been offered in a timely manner. In this case, the purpose of the expert opinions of Mr. López and Mr. Quiroga was substantially expanded in the representatives’ final list of declarants, regarding that proposed in the brief containing the pleadings and motions. Given that the mentioned expert reports were offered in a timely manner by the representatives, and given that the modification of the purpose was not justified, such expert evidence shall be adduced from the originally offered purpose, pursuant to the operative part of this Order. f) Admissibility of the evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission 22. The Commission offered the expert report of Mr. Alejandro Valencia Villa, to render a statement at the hearing on international standards that determine the State's obligations in the framework of the military operations taking place in a context of internal armed conflicts, including the obligations to the civilian population and international standards to be taken into account when investigating cases like this case. Established across the board, the expert witness will analyze the convergence and complementarity of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. 23. Pursuant to that established in Article 35(1)(f) of the Rules of Procedure, the “possible appointment of expert witnesses” can be carried out by the Inter-American Commission “when the Inter-American public order of human rights is affected in a significant manner,” whose basis and purpose must be appropriately supported. The purpose of this provision makes appointment of expert witnesses by the Commission an exceptional fact, subject to this requirement which is not merely satisfied by the fat that the evidence sought to be provided relates to an alleged violation of human rights. The “Inter-American public order of human rights [must] be affected in a significant manner,” to which the Commission must then support this situation.4 24. The Commission considered that the Court is called to decide on different aspects of State obligations in the context of internal armed conflicts, specifically in the context of 4 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 El Mozote Massacre and neighboring areas, supra nota 3, Considering clause 17. 7