34 does not affect legal certainty and procedural balance among the parties.13 The Court also deems that this testimony can help it establish the facts of the instant case, insofar as it is in accordance with the object defined in the aforementioned Order, and will assess it in the context of the body of evidence, applying the rules of competent analysis and taking into account the comments made by the State (supra para. 32). 83. The State also challenged the statements rendered before the respective legal representatives and with authentication of signatures by a notary public, signed by minors Roland Andrés Valencia Sanmiguel, Gustavo Caicedo Contreras, Maryuri Caicedo Contreras, Yinda Adriana Valencia Sanmiguel, and Johanna Marina Valencia Sanmiguel “because they were not obtained in accordance with the Colombian legislation in force[, as] it is not true that according to Colombian law minors cannot render statements.” In this regard, the Court has admitted, in previous cases, sworn statements that were not rendered before a notary public, when this does not affect legal certainty and procedural balance among the parties14. Therefore, the Court admits them insofar as they are in accordance with the object defined in said Order and taking into account the comments made by the State and the acknowledgment of responsibility by the State (supra paras. 25 and 34). As this Court has already pointed out (supra para. 81), the next of kin of the alleged victims have a direct interest in the case, and their statement cannot be assessed in an isolated manner, but rather in the context of the body of evidence, applying the rules of competent analysis. 84. The sworn statements of expert witnesses Ana Deustch and Robin Kirk, offered by the representatives (supra para. 25), were not rendered before a notary public but rather authenticated by a public notary. Furthermore, the State challenged the sworn statement of expert witness Robin Kirk, because the representatives submitted “the original version and its translation into Spanish” inopportunely. Colombia also challenged the sworn statement of expert witness Ana Deutsch, because “the facts on which she […] bases her expert opinion are not appropriate inputs for a psychiatric, psychological and psychosocial expert opinion entrusted to her[; the expert opinion] was not carried out in strict compliance with the objectivity and impartiality required by the nature of an expert opinion[;] the depth of the personal and family assessment does not address the psychological structure of the individuals nor does it extensively analyze the history of the family dynamics of the persons assessed[; and] there are significant gaps regarding the techniques and instruments used in the assessment.” 85. In this regard, the Court admits the expert opinions mentioned in the previous paragraph, as it has accepted, in other cases, sworn statements that were not rendered before a notary public when this does not affect legal certainty and procedural balance among the parties,15 insofar as they are in accordance with the object defined in said Order (supra para. 25). This court will assess them in the context of the body of evidence, applying the rules of competent analysis and taking into account the objections of the State. 13 See Case of Yatama, supra note 7, para. 115; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 11, para. 39, and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 82. 14 See Case of Yatama, supra note 7, para. 115; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 11, para. 39, and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 13,, para. 82. 15 See Case of Yatama, supra note 7, para. 115; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 11, para. 39, and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 13, para. 82.