D. Request by the Commission to formulate questions to expert witnesses offered by the representatives and the State 19. In its observations to the definitive lists provided by the representatives and the State, the Commission requested a verbal or written opportunity to formulate questions to expert witnesses Luis Enrique Eguren and Juan Antonio Mejia, proposed by the representatives, and to expert witness Nery Velásquez, proposed by the State. In this regard, it indicated that this request is based on the fact that the expert opinions are related to and directly complement the objects of the expert opinions offered by it. The Commission also explained that the questions it sought to ask would be limited to aspects directly related to the object of the expert opinions it has offered. 20. With regard to this request, the President recalls that the current Rules establish limits regarding the reception of statements proposed by the Commission, and also in relation to its authority to question the deponents offered by the other parties. According to Article 52(3) of the Rules, the Inter-American Commission may question an expert witness proposed by another party at the public hearing when the inter-American public order of human rights is substantially affected and his statement concerns some aspect of the subject matter contained in an expert opinion offered by the Commission. 21. As to the request by the Inter-American Commission to question expert witness Luis Enrique Eguren offered by the representatives, the President notes that the object of that expert opinion, which concerns the protection of human rights defenders, is intimately related to the expert opinion of Michael Reed-Hurtado, and is therefore relevant to the inter-American public order of human rights and transcends the specific facts of this case and the specific interest of the parties in litigation. Accordingly, the President grants the Commission’s request to question said expert witness. 22. With regard to the request to question expert witness Juan Antonio Mejía offered by the representatives, given that it is connected with the expert opinion of Frank la Rue, the President recalls that the expert opinion proposed by the representatives concerns the context of risk, violence and impunity that affects human rights defenders in Honduras since the 1990s and until the present day, while the expert opinion proposed by the Commission refers mainly to the link between exercising the defense of human rights and the right to political participation. Accordingly, the President considers that, although it is true that both expert opinions analyze situations linked to the defense of human rights, the objects proposed appear to have different purposes. This is based on the fact that the first expert opinion seeks to analyze a contextual situation in Honduras, while the second refers to activities in defense of human rights as a form of political participation. Therefore, there is not a sufficient connection to consider appropriate the application of the provisions of Article 52(3) of the Rules. Accordingly, the President rejects the request of the Commission to question that expert witness. 23. Finally, regarding the request to question the deponent Nery Velásquez, the Commission indicated that it is, in part, an expert statement that seeks to describe the functioning of a national institution that works to protect human rights defenders, and as such, is directly related to the expert opinions of Michael Reed-Hurtado, offered by the Commission, and of Luis Enrique Eguren, offered by the representatives. In this regard, the President finds that the State did not specifically indicate the capacity in which it was offering this statement, and therefore the President must decide, on the 6