have an interest in this case, their testimony will not be assessed alone, but together with all the evidence in the proceedings.12 20. Regarding the expert testimony offered by the State to carry out an anthropological study of the traditional lands of the Xákmok Kásek Community, in a brief submitted on April 6, 2010, the State informed the Court that it had designated Sergio Iván Braticevic. Finally, on May 17, 2010, the State forwarded the said expert report. 21. In briefs of April 19 and June 1, 2010, the Commission presented its observations on the designation of Sergio Iván Braticevic and on the expert report submitted. It stated, inter alia, that: “the report [was] not signed by Mr. Braticevic, and it is clear from the notarized document forwarded by the State, in which the said brief is supposedly transcribed, that it was a third party, Jose E. Garcia Avalos, apparently a State official, who requested the transcript of the document before a notary”; the expert witness was not a specialist in anthropology, but a geographer; he had only published work on the Argentine Chaco; he was not a specialist in indigenous peoples; his publications focused on development projects and the expansion of production; to prepare his report, he only met with agents of the State and he does not have the necessary experience to provide this kind of opinion. Based on the foregoing, the Commission argued that his expert opinion did not comply with the purpose for which it was proposed and that it was not relevant to receive his expert opinion, since it did not help elucidate the facts. 22. In a brief received on June 1, 2010, the representatives presented their observations on the expert opinion of Sergio Iván Braticevic. They considered it misguided that the study had been based on the documentation of this case and on interviews with officials, without taking the Community into account, and suspected that the intention of the study was to “give a technical appearance or veneer to the State’s hope to [be relieved] of its responsibility in the restitution of the 10,700 hectares of land claimed.” 23. In this regard, the Court observes that, although the expert opinion forwarded is not signed by Mr. Braticevic, it has been notarized, and that the observations of the Commission and the representatives refer to its probative value and not to its admissibility. Consequently, the Court considers that the expert opinion of Mr. Braticevic is useful for the case, and will assess together with the body of evidence, in keeping with the rules of sound judicial discretion, and any pertinent observations will be assessed, when examining the merits of the dispute. 24. On April 16, 2010, after the public hearing, the State submitted documentary evidence referring, among other matters, to the delivery of provisions and humanitarian assistance. On May 24, 2010, the representatives indicated that this evidence “is not related [to] the matters that are in dispute, so that it is irrelevant,” and also it had occurred in recent months. In this regard, the Court admits the documentary evidence forwarded by the State and incorporates it into the body of evidence because it is useful for deciding the case. When examining it, the Court will 12 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 93, and Case of the “Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 63. 7