considers it appropriate to admit the documents provided by Colombia, in accordance with Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure, and they will be assessed in the context of the body of evidence. 70. In addition, on March 28, 2012, expert witness José Francisco Tulande forwarded, through the State, “[t]he recordings and documents” offered to the Court during the public hearing held in this case. The Commission and the representative did not make observations on this documentation. The Court incorporates this documentation as evidence because it considers it useful for the instant case, taking into account that it was not contested. The pertinent parts of these documents will be assessed taking into consideration the purpose for the said expert opinion opportunely defined by the President, the body of evidence, and rules of sound judicial discretion. B.2) Admission of the statements of the presumed victims and the testimonial and expert evidence 71. Regarding the statements of the presumed victims, the testimony, and the expert opinions provided during the public hearing and by affidavit, the Court finds them pertinent only to the extent that they conform to the purpose defined by the President in the Order requiring them (supra para. 8). They will be assessed in the corresponding chapter, together with the other elements of the body of evidence and taking into account the observations made by the parties.64 72. According to this Court’s case law, the statements made by the presumed victims cannot be assessed in isolation, but rather together with all the evidence in the proceedings, since they are useful to the extent that they can provide more information on the presumed violations and their consequences.65 Based on the foregoing, the Court admits these statements and will assess them in keeping with the criteria indicated. 73. In its final written arguments, the State asserted that the affidavits of expert witness Daniel Coronell, proposed by the representative, and expert witness Ana María Díaz proposed by the Commission were “irrelevant” because they did not comply with the purpose established by the President in his Order of January 25, 2012. Regarding the expert opinion of Daniel Coronel, Colombia observed that “he merely gave a brief description of the facts that he considers happened to Mr. Vélez and his family, and presented some personal observations on the violence in Colombia”; hence, it asked the Court to “reject the affirmations that are not directly related to the purpose.” In addition, regarding the expert opinion of Ana María Díaz, it indicated, inter alia, that “it is a summary of declarations by international organizations and the statistics [were] taken from a single source: the database of the organization of which she is the Assistant Director for Research,” so that “there is no way to validate the information she provides to ensure that it is credible and reliable.” Colombia asked the Court to reject all “the assertions of the expert witness that are not related to the purpose [or] that are not substantiated by any source.” 74. The Court considers it pertinent to indicate that, unlike witnesses, who must avoid giving personal opinions, expert witnesses may provide technical or personal opinions as long as they relate to their special knowledge or expertise. In addition, expert witnesses 64 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, para. 13. 65 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits, para. 43, and Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 13. 24