27. The acting President notes that Mr. Llaque Mora himself confirmed that he is currently associated with the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Crimes of Terrorism, which is responsible for the “legal defense of the State.” In this regard, the acting President considers that the task of defending the State conducted by Mr. Llaque Mora at the domestic level shows a relationship of subordination with Peru which could affect his impartiality in rendering an expert opinion in this case. Moreover, for the purposes of the proceedings before this Court, it is irrelevant that the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Crimes of Terrorism is under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior, while the Supranational Prosecutor, in charge of defending the State before the Inter-American Court, is attached to the Ministry of Justice. Both are organs of the State, which is the defendant in this case. The Court recalls that, before the international jurisdiction, it is only the State as such, and not its respective powers, which appears before the oversight organs of the American Convention on Human Rights.15 Consequently, the acting President considers that the grounds for disqualification established in Article 48(1)(c) of the Rules apply to Mr. Llaque Mora’s situation. 28. Nevertheless, the acting President considers it pertinent to receive his statement for information purposes, given Mr. Llaque Mora’s experience in this sphere. The object of his statement as a deponent for information purposes shall be decided in the operative section of this Order (infra Operative para. 5), so that the Court may assess its value at the proper procedural moment, within the context of the existing body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. G. Admissibility of the expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission 29. Article 35(1)(f) of the Rules provides for the “possible appointment of expert witnesses” by the Inter-American Commission, with due justification of the grounds and object of such appointment “when the inter-American public order of human rights is affected in a significant manner.”16 The implication of this provision is that the appointment of expert witnesses by the Commission is an exceptional circumstance, subject to that requirement, which is not satisfied by the mere fact that the evidence to be produced is related to an alleged human rights violation. The “inter-American public order of human rights” must be “affected in a significant manner,” and it is up to the Commission to justify that situation.”17 30. In this case, the Commission offered two expert witnesses, pointing out that this “case includes matters related to the inter-American public order.” It considered that, “given that the victim was raped by state agents at the time of her detention, with no steps having been taken to investigate the matter, this case represents an opportunity for the Inter-American Court to deepen its analysis of different forms of sexual violence as acts of torture and the obligations [that this generates].” Also, according to the Commission, “the Court will be able to consolidate its jurisprudence on the incompatibility of proceedings for 15 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of September 7, 2012, Considering para. 12. 16 Cf. of Case Pedro Miguel Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Court of December 23, 2010, Considering para. 9, and Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Order of the President of the Court of February 19, 2013, Considering para. 34. 17 Cf. Case of Pedro Miguel Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Court of December 23, 2010, Considering para. 9, and Case of Camba Campos et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Court of February 15, 2013, Considering para. 11. 9