crimes of terrorism under Decree Law 25475, [and specify] the violations of due process.” 31. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Commission offered the expert opinion of Patricia Viseur Sellers on “the different forms of sexual violence and their characterization in light of international human rights law. The expert witness [would] also refer to elements that are relevant to characterize different forms of sexual violence as acts of torture, as well as international obligations to investigate and punish the perpetrators in such cases. Finally, the expert witness [would] testify on the international standards to be considered when deciding on reparations in cases of sexual violence.” In this regard, the Commission noted that “[t]he type of sexual violation that occurred to the detriment of the victim in this case has not been examined by the Court, nor has it been legally defined as such. Therefore, the Commission considers that it would be useful for the Court to have conceptual elements and as well as a study of the relevant case-law in international criminal law, in international human rights law and in comparative law on this matter.” It added that “the expert opinion [would] also contribute to the Court’s evidentiary analysis of such facts.” The Commission concluded that “the Court’s decisions on these matters would necessarily influence the development of inter-American case law and, in that regard, the proposed expert opinion is related to the inter-American public order.” 32. The Commission also offered the expert opinion of Stefan Trechsel on “international standards on matters of criminal due process that are relevant to the analysis of restrictions to due process, for example, to the possibilities of exercising the right of defense, in the context of the legal frameworks designed to prosecute and punish terrorism. The expert witness [would] provide elements to analyze the compatibility of these restrictions with the American Convention.” The Commission noted that, with regard to trials for terrorismrelated cases in Peru, the Court has not yet examined in detail the “various restrictions on the right to defense, the violation of the presumption of innocence and the retroactive application of substantive points of Decree Law 25475]”, including in this case. The Commission further noted that “this case has the peculiarity that, in determining the measures of reparation relative to the victim’s procedural situation and the measures of non-repetition, the Inter-American Court must take into account the amendments introduced at the domestic level as a consequence of the actions taken by the Constitutional Court in 2003 and on which the Court did not comment in detail in the case of Lori Berenson Mejía. The Commission added that “the Court’s decisions on this matter will contribute to the design of legal frameworks in other States of the region in relation to terrorism-related crimes, this being an issue [of] particular relevance in the hemisphere, especially as regards the restriction of procedural guarantees as a consequence of the nature of the crime.” 33. The representative considered “important the aspects of public order emphasized in the expert opinions offered by the Commission.” 34. For its part, the State noted that there is “a clear and obvious discrepancy in the object of the proposed expert opinion of [Mrs.] Viseur,” given that “the object of the expert opinion mentions sexual violence as its frame of reference, whereas the justification for the expert opinion mentions rape as a frame of reference”, and requested clarification. In that regard, Peru emphasized that “[t]he Commission insists that Mrs. J was raped, even though the petitioner herself has denied it in her brief of pleadings, motions and evidence.” The State indicated that since “the Court […] has heard several cases related to [the issue of rape …] and a significant body of case-law exists in this regard, the presentation of this expert opinion is not warranted under the terms stated by the Inter-American Commission.” 35. Regarding Mr. Trechsel’s expert opinion, the State noted that following several 10