14 the rest of the body of evidence, as they are useful and may provide further information on the alleged violations and the consequences thereof.25 48. The Tribunal notes that at the public hearing held in the present case, regarding expert witness Claribel Ramirez, the State indicated that this person “is criminally accused” of the crime of fraud at the domestic level, and handed over, among others, a document that allegedlly “certifies” the existence of such criminal acussation. The State pointed out that this fact “doubts about her fitness to make a psychological assessment […].” The Tribunal notes that the appropriate procedural moment for objecting to the submission of expert opinions, among other things, was upon the submission of the observations requested from the parties when they ratified the offering of such evidence. For that reason, and given that the State did not object in a timely fashion, the President of the Tribunal ordered Ms. Claribel Ramírez to render her expert opinion at the public hearing (supra para. 6). Thus, the Court decides to admit and to grant proof value to Ms. Claribel Ramírez’s expert opinion because the State did not object to it at the appropriate procedural time. In this regard, it is not necessary for the Court to declare on whether the existence of the alleged criminal accusation Like the other expert opinions, the Tribunal shall opportunely assess this one. VI FORCED DISAPPEARANCE OF MESSRS. RAINER IBSEN CÁRDENAS AND JOSÉ LUIS IBSEN PEÑA (ARTICLES 7, 5, 4, AND 3 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION, IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) THEREOF AND ARTICLES I AND XI OF THE CONVENTION ON FORCED DISAPPEARANCE) 49. The Commission and the representatives alleged several violations of the American Convention as a result of the alleged forced disappearances of Messrs. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and Jose Luis Ibsen Peña that, as indicated, occurred within a particular context in Bolivia (infra paras. 50 to 56). Before analyzing the arguments of the Commission and the representatives, the Court shall determine the proven facts concerning the alleged forced disappearances committed against the alleged victims, within the context in which they apparently occurred and taking into account the body of evidence and the State’s partial acknowledgment of international responsibility (supra paras. 5 to 23 and 26). A. Context in which the facts of the instant case occurred. 50. For the analysis of the arguments on the alleged forced disappearances of Messrs. Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, the Court deems it is necessary to take into account the context in which those events apparently occurred, as it may determine the juridical consequences related both to the nature of the alleged human rights violations as well as to the possible reparations.26 25 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Perú. Merits, supra note 24, para. 43; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 56, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 65. 26 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. supra note 7, paras. 53 and 63; Case of La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163. para. 76, and Case Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 116.