military operations and using international humanitarian law as a source of interpretation for the relevant rules of the Convention. Thus, the expert witness would provide the necessary conceptual elements to inform the Court’s decision stemming from a perspective on the complementarity of the two bodies of law in a case like this. Therefore, the Commission considered that the expert opinion would relevantly affect the Inter-American public order. 25. The State did not present any objection to this expert witness and the representatives also proposed it in their brief containing pleadings and motions, which was reiterated in the final list. 26. The President considers that the expert's report can be useful and relevant in regard to the relationship between international humanitarian law and international human rights law in order to establish general parameters on State obligations in the context of military operations in internal armed conflicts, which transcends the specific interests of the parties in a given proceeding and becomes a matter relevant to the Inter-American public interest. As such, the President considers it appropriate to admit the expert report of Alejandro Valencia Villa, proposed by the Inter-American Commission. 27. The representatives also suggested that the expert witness render a statement, “in light of international humanitarian law, on the attack against the civilian population, including the bombing, the killing of civilians, the wounded civilians, the looting, the forced displacement, the special protection of children, and other hostile acts against the population.” They stated further that the expert witness “would answer questions on other matters related to the subject matter of this case and his area of expertise.” 28. The State argued that, with regard to that part of the purpose of the expert opinion, it “would become a testimony to the extent that it would refer to factual elements where the existence of these and circumstances are the subject of litigation and therefore the expert report, in light of international humanitarian law [sic], would be mere speculation.” In addition, the State indicated that the amplitude of the last aspect of the purpose that was proposed by the representatives, does not establish well in advance what the "other matters related” to the subject matter of the case and area of expertise would be, to which that aspect of the expert opinion violates the adversary principle in the absence of timely knowledge of the scope of the questions that the representatives could make. Therefore, the State objected “to this aspect of the expert opinion, considering it inadmissible in light of Article 2(23) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.” 29. The President notes that in effect the representatives actually suggest the aforementioned consideration as part of what would be the purpose of the proposed expert opinion, as well as that of other proposed expert opinions. It has been considered that "this manner of proposing testimony or expert opinions does not take into account the adversary principle, to which in many cases the subject matter of testimonies and expert opinions is specified based on the particular case. Therefore, in accordance with the most recent practice of this Court, after analyzing the purpose and evaluating what is relevant in this case, the Presidency will restrict the subject of the proposed statements and indicates, in the operative paragraphs of this Order, the manner in which it will be received and the specific points to which each expert opinion should be limited.” 5 As to the expert opinion of Mr. Valencia Villa, its purpose shall be established in the operative part of this decision, as proposed by the InterAmerican Commission. g) Manner in which the statements and expert opinions shall be received 30. It is necessary to ensure the most comprehensive presentation of facts and arguments by the parties in all that is relevant to the resolution of the issues being disputed, thereby 5 Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Order of the President of the Court of December 22, 2009, Considering clause 16. 8