41 rules of sound criticism and bearing in mind the observations of the parties (supra paras. 29, 38 and 39). 114. Regarding the sworn statements that were not made before notary public by the witnesses proposed by the Commission and the representatives, and also by the expert witnesses proposed by the representatives, the Court admits them to the extent they are in keeping with the purpose defined in the order of July 28, 2005, and assesses them together with the body of evidence, applying the rules of sound criticism and bearing in mind the objections submitted by the State (supra para. 36). On other occasions, the Court has admitted sworn statements that were not made before notary public, when this does not affect the legal certainty or the procedural equality of the parties.32 115. The representatives objected to the expert opinion given before notary public (affidavit) by Hernan de Jesús Sanín Posada, presented by the State, arguing that some of the conclusions reached by the expert witness were not true (supra para. 38). In this regard, the Court admits this expert opinion to the extent that it is in keeping with the purpose defined in the order of July 28, 2005, and assesses it with the body of evidence, applying the rules of sound criticism and bearing in mind the objections raised by the representatives. 116. The Commission objected to the statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Jorge Armando Otalora Gómez, presented by the State, with regard to “the recital of the facts on pages 1 to 7 concerning the events in La Granja, and pages 7 to 13, [since] they did not constitute testimony,” and, consequently, stated that “the facts referred to there should be accepted as proven only to the extent that the Court has the judicial documentation in which they are recorded” (supra para. 39). In this respect, the Court admits this statement to the extent that it is in keeping with the purpose defined in the order of July 28, 2005, and assesses it with the body of evidence, applying the rules of sound criticism and bearing in mind the objections raised by the Commission. 117. The representatives objected to the statements made before notary public (affidavits) by Jorge Armando Otalora Gómez and Jaime Jaramillo Panneso, presented by the State, because they were time-barred, having been submitted one day after the time limit for their presentation had expired (supra para. 38). In this regard, the Court considers that, although these statements were presented on September 9, 2005, while the time limit for their presentation had expired on September 8, 2005, this delay does not affect the legal certainty and procedural equality of the parties. Therefore, the Court admits these statements to the extent that they are in keeping with the purpose defined in the order of July 28, 2005, and assesses them with the body of evidence, applying the rules of sound criticism and bearing in mind the objections raised by the representatives. 118. The Court considers useful for deciding this case the documents presented by the representatives on September 23, 2005 (supra para. 43), which consist of powers of attorney, identity cards, a marriage certificate, and also baptismal certificates and birth certificates of some of the alleged victims and their next of kin; particularly, as they were not contested or opposed and their authenticity and 32 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 5, para. 67; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 9, para. 42; and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 12, para. 191.