19 intention of the State’s objections is to discredit the probative value of the statements made by the alleged victims in these proceedings. Basically, the State indicates that they differ from their previous statements before the domestic legal system; that two alleged victims were not eyewitnesses to specific events about which they testified, and that they refer to facts that are not part of the purpose of this case. The Court considers that these objections do not contest the admissibility of said evidence, but rather intend to question its probative significance. Taking the foregoing into account, the Court admits said statements; nevertheless, their probative value will be considered only insofar as they correspond to the purpose defined by the President of the Court (supra para. 28), taking into account the entire body of evidence, the State’s observations, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 54. With regard to the testimony of Mrs. Gutiérrez Moreno, the State indicated that “only 17 lines of its 10 pages refer to the [present case] and they contain subjective opinions.” It added that “[t]he deponent refers to a series of situations that, apart from being mere subjective opinions, bear no relationship whatsoever to the case [sub judice].” Hence, “[i]f positive consideration is given to the deponent’s assertions, it would seriously modify the legal grounds for the action of the Inter-American Commission and of the Court itself, because it would unduly alter the context with facts on which a ruling should also be made” by the Court. Mexico asked the Court to reject this entire testimony, “based on the assessment of situations other than the ones that the Court is examining,” which do not bear a “direct relationship to the case under litigation.” 55. As to the testimony of Mrs. Eugenio Manuel, among other aspects, the State observed that “the second part of her testimony […] mentions the alleged acts of harassment and threats that gave rise to the provisional measures [related to the present case],” but which are not part of the contentious case. In the State’s opinion, “the witness attempts to stress facts that bear no phenomenological relationship to the facts on which the litis of the case has been established,” and which cannot be considered supervening. On the other hand, it also indicated that “there is no evidence that the ministerial authorities of Ayutla de los Libres refused to process the complaint filed by Mrs. […] Fernández Ortega immediately.” To the contrary, the record of March 24, 2010, which is in the case file before the Court, indicates that the criminal complaint for the offense of rape was received immediately, without any problems. Consequently, the State denied “the witness’s assertion that there had been an unjustified delay by the agent of the [P]ublic [P]rosecutor’s Office when the criminal complaint was filed.” 56. In addition, Mexico indicated that the testimony of Mr. Ramírez Rodríguez “did not provide any new elements to those already supplied by [the alleged victims]” and that, to the contrary, it refers to “a series of circumstances and facts that have nothing to do with the [present case].” Based on the foregoing, it asked that the entire declaration be rejected. 57. As for the testimony of Mr. Lugo Cortés, the State indicated that part of it “is in conformity with the acknowledgement made by the State as regards some irregularities” committed by the authorities in the provision of health care and the search for justice in this case. On the other hand, “[a]nything related to the functioning of the other agencies is not an aspect of the [litis] of this case.” 58. The Court notes that the State contested some of the testimonial statements, principally on the basis that the witnesses refer to facts that are outside the purpose of this case, or that there is evidence that contradicts their affirmations. These observations refer to the merits of the dispute; therefore, in the corresponding section of the Judgment, the Court will assess these statements by the witnesses insofar as they correspond to the purpose defined by the