2. The Commission offered as evidence two expert opinions, the representatives offered the testimony of four presumed victims, two witnesses and seven expert opinions, and the State offered two testimonies and one expert opinion (supra having seen paragraphs 9 to 11). 3. The Court ensured the parties the right of defense in relation to the offers of evidence made in their briefs submitting the case and with pleadings and motions, and in the answering brief, as well as in their final lists (supra having seen paragraph 12). 4. The Commission indicated that it had no observations to make on the final lists presented by the parties (supra having seen paragraph 14). Furthermore, the representatives and the State did not present observations on the final lists. However, in its brief, the State asked that the Court reject the incorporation into this case of the expert opinion provided by Magaly Vásquez in the case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. 5. With regard to the testimony and expert opinions offered by the representatives and by the State that have not been contested, the President finds it desirable to receive the said evidence so that the Court may assess its usefulness at the appropriate procedural moment, in the context of the existing body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judicial discretion. This refers to the testimony of four presumed victims proposed by the representatives: Yelitze Lisbeth Moreno Cova, Yolanda Margarita González, Jaime Josué Castillo, and Julijay Castillo; of the witnesses Luz Marina Márquez Frontado and Ricardo Soberón, proposed by the representatives; of the witnesses Elvis José Rodríguez Moreno, and Rafael Finol Ocando, proposed by the State; the opinions of Alfredo Infante, Michael Reed Hurtado, Claudia Carrillo and Claudia Samayoa, proposed by the representatives, and the opinion of Antonio Uribarrí, proposed by the State. The purpose of this testimony and the way in which it will be received will be determined by the President in the operative paragraphs of this Order (infra operative paragraphs 1 and 5). A. Testimonial evidence offered by the representatives 6. In their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives proposed the testimony of Fanny Machado; however, this was not confirmed in their final list (supra having seen paragraphs 3 and 11). 7. According to Article 46(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the appropriate procedural opportunity for the representatives to confirm or withdraw the offer of testimony made in the pleadings and motions brief is in the final list requested by the Court. 2 The President understands that, by not confirming the said testimonial statement in its final list, the representatives desisted from offering the said testimony, at the appropriate procedural moment. B. Expert evidence offered by the representatives 8. The President finds it unnecessary to receive the expert opinion of Marcela Ceballos Medina, proposed by the representatives, on “the issue of refugees, displaced persons and migrants in Colombia, particularly on the dynamics on the border between Colombia and 2 Cf. Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Court of December 23, 2010, eighth considering paragraph, and Case of Alicia Barbani Duarte, María del Huerto Breccia et al. (Group of Depositors in the Banco de Montevideo) v. Uruguay. Order of the President of the Court of January 31, 2011, eleventh considering paragraph. 3