affidavit in the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, 41 as well as the sworn statement of Emma Vigueras “who acted as legal representative of another woman who was detained during the same operation [where J.] was detained,” which had been presented to the Commission during the processing of this case. These annexes were forwarded to the Commission and the State together with the motions and arguments brief. In this regard, the Court reiterates that the pertinence of a statement offered by the parties or the Commission in a case, and the definition of its purpose, must be established by this Court or its President. Therefore, the Court ratifies the decision of the acting President in his Order of April 16, 2013, that the said statements would only be considered documentary evidence, insofar as they had not been requested, and their purpose had not been determined, by the Court or its President; 42 accordingly, they will be assessed in the context of the existing body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judicial discretion. B.2 Admission of the testimonial and expert evidence 49. Regarding the testimony of the witnesses and the deponent for information purposes, and the expert opinions provided during the public hearing and by affidavit, the Court finds them pertinent, only insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the acting President in the Order requiring them (supra para. 10). They will be assessed in the corresponding chapter, together 43 with the rest of the body of evidence, and taking into account the observations of the parties. 50. In a brief of May 10, 2013, the State made certain observations on the affidavits of the representative; in particular, that the deponents proposed by the presumed victim had not answered the questions posed by the State specifically and directly. On May 14, 2013, the State was informed that this was not the procedural occasion for making observations on the testimony presented by the representative, because, the Order of the acting President of April 16, 2013, had established that these should be presented together with its final written arguments. However, the State did not reiterate these observations in its final written arguments; hence, the Court does not find it necessary to refer to them. VII FACTS 51. In this chapter, the Court will establish the facts of this case, based on the facts submitted to it by the Commission, taking into consideration the body of evidence in the case, as well as the motions and arguments brief of the representative and the arguments of the State. The Court 44 recalls that, under Article 41(3) of the Rules of Procedure, it may consider accepted the facts that have not been expressly denied, and the claims that have not been expressly contested, although this does not mean that it will consider them accepted automatically in all the cases in which they have not been opposed by one of the parties, and without an assessment of the specific circumstances of the case and the existing body of evidence. The silence of the defendant State or its evasive or ambiguous answer may be interpreted as an acceptance of the facts of the Merits 41 The purpose of this expert opinion was “the facts of [the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru] and issues related to [eventual] reparations in [that] case,” in her capacity as “expert in torture.” The purpose of the testimony of the J.’s mother was “what she, as a mother, experienced in relation to the acts that were investigated in [that] case.” Cf. Case of Juárez Cruz Cruzzat et al. v. Peru. Order of the President of May 24, 2006, first operative paragraph. 42 Similarly, see, Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, Judgment of March 4, 2011. Series C No. 223, para. 39, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 46. 43 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No. 252, para. 40. 44 Article 41(3) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establishes that “[t]he Court may consider accepted those facts that have not been expressly denied and those claims that have not been expressly controverted.” 17