17. The brief of May 29, 2012, wherein the State presented arguments regarding the evidence it had offered in relation to the observations of the representatives. 18. The note of the Secretariat of May 31, 2012, wherein the State and representatives were informed that, because they had not been requested nor had their presentation been considered in the Rules of Procedure, the two aforementioned briefs (supra Having Seen clause 16 and 17) were provided to the President in order for their admissibility or other matters to be assessed. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. The offer and admission of evidence, as well as the summons of the alleged victims, witnesses, and expert witnesses, is regulated by Articles 35(1)(f), 40(2)(c), 41(1)(c), 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52(3), and 57 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 2. The Court guaranteed the parties the right to defense regarding the evidence offered in the brief submitting the case, the brief containing pleadings and motions, and the answer brief, as well as the final lists. 3. In regard to the statements offered by the parties that had not been contested, this Presidency considers it convenient to gather them, in order for the Court to assess their value at the opportune procedural moment, within the context of the existing body of evidence and pursuant to the rules of sound judgment. The purpose of these statements and the manner in which they will be received shall be established in the operative part of this decision (infra operative paragraphs 1 and 5). 4. Below, the President will assess in a particular manner: a) the admissibility of the expert evidence offered by the State and its “subsidiary” request for the Court to provide expert opinions; b)the objections of the representatives to the statements offered by the State; c) the objections of the State to the statements offered by the representatives; d) the request to replace an expert witness offered by the representatives; e) the State’s request to reject the expert opinions offered by the representatives; f) the admissibility of expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission; g) the manner in which the statements and expert reports would be received; h) the final oral and written arguments and observations; and i) the request of the State and the representatives to incorporate documentary elements. a) Admissibility of the expert evidence offered by the State and its “subsidiary” request for the Court to provide expert opinions. 5. In its answer brief, the State requested: “[a]s a primary claim, and pursuant to the Rules of the Court […] that expert evidence be decreed with international experts that be announced to follow. As such, the names and resumes of the expert witnesses will be provided to the Court as soon as possible. Were the Court to agree, the State requests that a period be established to present these names. […] 1. Expert report of an expert in explosives. The expert report given by an expert in explosives, is aimed at accurately determining the characteristics of the explosive device that caused the injuries, deaths, and destruction in Santo Domingo, Arauca. This will establish a high degree of certainty, that the events sub judice resulted from the action of a homemade bomb installed by the FARC, in a truck parked on the only route to the hamlet, and not due to the impact of a device AN-MIA21 launched by the Colombian Air Force. […] 2. Expert report of an expert in medical forensics. The expert opinion given by an expert in forensic medicine, is aimed at showing that the evidence that makes up the body of evidence do not prove that the injuries and deaths in Santo Domingo on December 13, 1998, were caused by air – land weaponry, implemented by the Colombian Air Force. 3