52 83. This Court deems that the statements made by relatives of the alleged victims, who have a direct interest in this case, cannot be evaluated separately; instead, they must be evaluated within the context of the body of evidence in the case. Both for the merits and for reparations the testimony of the alleged victims’ next of kin is useful to the extent that their testimony can provide additional information on the consequences of the violations that may have been committed.41 84. The testimony of Pedro Iván Peña and Raúl Esteban Portillo supplied by the representatives (supra paragraphs 48 and 72), consists of the questions posed by Ms. Viviana Krsticevic, Executive Director of CEJIL, and the witnesses’ answers, which appear in a document dated March 25, 2004, and are not in the form of a statement sworn in the presence of a person with legal authority to authenticate documents (affidavit). No party either disputed or objected to these questions and answers, so that the Court will admit them as documentary evidence and will evaluate them in the body of evidence. 85. The State objected to the expert testimony given by Mr. Carlos Arestivo on the grounds that “Mr. Arestivo was a member of a nongovernmental organization called ‘Tekojojá,’ which was one of the original claimants in the case […], so that the expert testimony taken cannot be objective and impartial.” The State therefore requested that the Court “not take that evidence into consideration when arriving at its judgment.” Although the State objected to the expert testimony given by Mr. Carlos Arestivo (supra para. 51), this Court is admitting it insofar as it fits the intended purpose of the examination. It will take the State’s objections into account and assess this testimony as part of the body of evidence following the rules governing reasoned judgment arrived at freely and on the basis of admissible evidence, within the relevant legal framework.42 86. The State also objected to the statement given by Mrs. Silvia Portillo Martínez on the grounds that it “was not given in the presence of a person with legal authority to authenticate documents, in violation of the provision contained in the Rules of Court […] in the pertinent part.” The State asked the Court “not to consider this piece of evidence when arriving at its judgment.” Although the State objected to Mrs. Silvia Portillo Martínez’ statement (supra para. 51), this Court is admitting it to the extent that it fits the purpose of the examination. It will take the State’s objections into account and assess the evidence in the context of the body of evidence as a whole, applying the rules governing reasoned judgment arrived at freely and on the basis of admissible evidence, within the relevant legal framework.43 87. As for the statements given at the Office of the Chief Notary of the Government of the Republic of Paraguay, presented by the State, the Commission asserted that the “responses are irrelevant given the terms in which the dispute in the instant case was framed.” The Commission argued further that one of the questions in the statement of Fernando Vincente Canillas Vera was “contrary to the provisions of Article 42(3) of the Rules of Court, which states that “Leading questions shall not be permitted.” The Commission also objected to the assertion made by 41 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 26, para. 63; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 26, para. 79; and Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 29, para. 72. 42 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 26, para. 54; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 26, para. 65; and Case of Molina Theissen, supra note 26, para. 23. 43 Supra note 42.