State did not challenge the relevance of the object of the expert opinions offered by the representatives, nor did it object to the persons proposed to render them. The State’s arguments are aimed at avoiding supposed “procedural delays” or an “unnecessary increase in the costs of the proceeding,” which are not sufficient grounds to reject them. Therefore, considering that these expert opinions are related to the alleged facts of this case, the President deems it useful to receive them. The object and the manner in which they shall be rendered shall be determined in this Order. 14. Finally, when submitting its observations to the definitive list of deponents proposed by the representatives, pursuant to Article 48(1)(c) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the State objected to the expert witness Laura Dolores based on the fact that “she is a member of the mental health team of the CELS”, in other words, of one of the organizations representing the alleged victims. Therefore, the State considered that “her impartiality could be seriously affected.” 15. As mentioned previously (supra Having Seen 11), Mrs. Laura Dolores Sobredo did not submit observations to the objection made against her by the State. 16. In their brief of pleadings and motions, in offering the expert evidence of Mrs. Sobredo, the representatives indicated that she is a “member of the mental health team of the CELS.” Also, her curriculum vitae, in the section on “work experience”, states that since 2005 “until the present day” Mrs. Sobredo is a “Psychiatrist of the Mental Health Team of the CELS”, and provides “psycho-legal accompaniment in trials for crimes against humanity, expert assessments, [and participates] in research projects related to influencing public policies.” 17. Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Rules states that “[a]n expert witness may be disqualified based on the following grounds: […] c. he or she currently has, or has had, close ties with the proposing party, or is or has been, a subordinate or the proposing party, and the Court considers that his or her impartiality may be affected.” As indicated in the preceding paragraph, Mrs. Sobredo works directly with the CELS, an organization which together with CEJIL/Argentina represents the alleged victims in this case. Therefore, the President considers that this working relationship may affect her impartiality when rendering her expert opinion. 18. Based on the foregoing considerations, the President considers valid the disqualification proposed by Argentina, and therefore decides not to admit the expert opinion of Mrs. Laura Dolores Sobredo. C. Manner in which the statements of the alleged victims and the expert opinions shall be rendered 19. It is necessary to ensure knowledge of the truth and the most complete presentation of the facts and arguments by the parties, insofar as these are pertinent to resolving the matters in dispute, guaranteeing both the right of the parties to defend their respective positions and the Court’s possibility of adequately examining the cases submitted to its consideration, bearing in mind that their number has grown considerably and is increasing constantly. It is also necessary to guarantee a reasonable term in the length of the proceeding, as required for effective access to justice. Accordingly, it is essential to receive the greatest possible number of testimonies and expert opinions through affidavits, and that the Court hear those alleged victims, witnesses and expert witnesses whose direct