of their testimony and must avoid giving personal opinions.21 Moreover, the Court considers that the representative’s observations on this testimony refer to aspects of its content that do not contest its admissibility, but relate to matters of probative value.22 Consequently, the Court admits this testimony and will assess it when examining the merits of the matter, together with the remainder of the body of evidence. Thus, the pertinent parts of the representative’s observations will be considered when analyzing the merits of the dispute, provided they refer to the facts alleged in this case, in keeping with its factual basis and the purpose of the litigation. 32. Regarding the list of questions presented by the representative to the witnesses Didier Alirio Rojas Rodríguez, Jimai Montiel Calles and Enrique Alberto Arrieta Pérez, which were admitted by the President of the Court and forwarded to the parties, expressly requesting the State to coordinate and take the necessary steps to ensure that the witnesses included the respective answers in their affidavits, as established in the Order of the President of November 2, 2011 (supra para. 9), the Court has verified that, following an extension of the time frame that was granted at the request of the State, “in order to forward an addendum [to] the testimonial reports [sent] with the answer to the questions admitted by the Court […], taking into consideration the time required for the domestic and notarial procedures,” Venezuela failed to submit the said addendum within the time granted to this end, and failed to present any explanation in this regard. 33. Regarding the statements forwarded by the State, the Court notes that they do not contain the answers to the questions submitted by the representative and opportunely admitted by the President. The fact that the Rules of Procedure establish the possibility of the parties formulating written questions for the deponents offered by the other party and, as appropriate, by the Commission, imposes the corresponding obligation of the party that offered the testimony to coordinate and take the necessary steps to forward the questions to the deponents, and that the respective answers are provided. In the Court’s opinion, the State’s conduct is incompatible with the obligation of procedural cooperation and with the principle of good faith that govern the international proceedings.23 V THE FACTS OF THE CASE A) Preliminary considerations 34. In accordance with Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, this case was submitted to the Court by the presentation of the report referred to in Article 50 of the Convention (namely, “the merits report”). According to Article 35(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission “shall indicate which facts contained in [this report] it is submitting to the consideration of the Court.” The facts in the merits report submitted to the Court’s consideration constitute the factual framework of the proceedings before the Court. In the Court’s opinion, when reference is made to the facts contained in the merits report, the said regulatory provision refers to the factual determinations made by the Inter-American Commission, and not to a simple reference to the arguments of the parties. In addition, it is not admissible that the presumed victims or their 21 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 105. 22 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 43, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011. Series C No. 223, para. 47. 23 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 3, 1998. Series C No. 40, para. 30, and Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 42. 11