18. Based on the foregoing and bearing in mind that the statements of J’s sister, J’s partner, Susan Pitt and Martin Rademacher are useful for the analysis of the possible merits of this case, the acting President admits the aforementioned statements, proposed by the representative at the proper procedural moment. The value of such statements shall be assessed at the proper procedural moment, within the context of the existing body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. The object of these statements and the manner in which they shall be received will be decided in the operative section of this Order (infra Operative paras. 1 and 5). E. Objections by the representative to the witness statements offered by the State 19. In addition to the testimonies that were not objected to (supra Considering para. 6), the State offered the testimony of Ana María Mendieta “[i]n her capacity as Director of the National Program Against Domestic and Sexual Violence of the Ministry for Women and Vulnerable Populations [who would testify] on standards for the investigation of violence against women and the implementation of training programs for public officials.” The representative objected to this testimony, pointing out that Mrs. Mendieta “is not [being] summoned to testify on any factual aspect of this case [,] but on the general topic of ‘standards for the investigation of violence against women and the implementation of training programs for public officials.” 20. In this regard, the acting President recalls that when a witness is summoned to testify before the Court, he or she may refer to facts and circumstances known to him or her, in relation to the object of his or her statement and should limit himself or herself to answering clearly and precisely the questions asked, and avoid giving personal opinions.11 Such facts and circumstances may include the standards for the investigation of violence against women and the implementation of training programs for public officials, provided that the proposed witness is familiar with these. 21. The State also offered the testimony of Nancy de la Cruz Chamilco. In its answer brief the State had indicated that “in her capacity as the medical […] examiner […] who signed […] the Medical Legal Certificate [No.] 15339-L dated April 18, 1992, [she would] testify on its results, the extent of [J´s] injuries and their location”. However, in the definitive list the State specified that this witness would testify, “[i]n her capacity as the medical examiner who supervised the examination carried out on Mrs. J, regarding the results of the examination, the extent of her injuries and their location.” The representative objected to this testimony pointing out that “the State referred to her position (‘Director General of the General Directorate of Legal Medicine of Lima’ […]), and a supervisory role in the medical examination, but without this being confirmed in the document itself [attached as evidence by the State in its answer brief].” 22. The acting President notes that, although the State modified the role played by Mrs. Nancy de la Cruz Chamilco in the medical examination, its object was not changed substantially or significantly. The acting President considers that the representative’s observations regarding Mrs. Nancy de la Cruz Chamilco’s effective participation in the medical examination are arguments related to the facts which the parties seek to demonstrate in this dispute. Therefore, taking into account the points made in Considering 11 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Order of the President of the Court of July 2, 2010, Considering para. 21, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. v. Guatemala. Order of the President of the Court of March 20, 2012, Considering para. 20. 7