19 did not have any direct knowledge.” Furthermore, the State pointed out that Mrs. Valdovinos recognized that “her knowledge about the circumstances of the detention” of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel “had been obtained by merely referential sources.” The State concluded that the deposition of this witness “is considered extremely general and without any grounds whatsoever.” Therefore, the State requested the Court to “reject the deposition by Mrs. Valdovinos about the present legal condition” of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. To that end, the Tribunal shall assess, in the merits of the case, whether the statements made by this witness are based on evidence. 42. In relation to witness Magallón Larson statement, the State pointed out that “he made certain statements, without enough documentation, about deforestation level in Mexico and, particularly, about the situation of the Petatlán community.” As regards the “alleged complicity of the governmental authorities regarding the clandestine felling on Petatlán hills,” the State pleaded that “the witness does not provide any grounds whatsoever for his affirmations.” On the other hand, the State pointed out that the “witness recognized that he was not directly involved in the facts of this case and that the advice provided by Greenpeace to the alleged victims started a long time afterwards,” that is why the State requested to take into account only those affirmations exclusively related to the period when “the witness [directly] participated in the case.” As regards these issues, the Court considers that these do not engage the admission of this deposition, since the State recognizes the participation of the witness in this case. The scope of his deposition shall be assessed, if applicable, together with the rest of the body of evidence, taking into account what the State pointed out and the object of the lawsuit. 43. The Court notes that the State objected to some of the witnesses’ depositions mainly because the witnesses referred to facts that seemed to be foreign to the object of this case, or because there would be evidence against their affirmations. Such observations refer to the merits of the controversy, so the Court shall assess, in the corresponding chapter of the Judgment, the content of the witnesses depositions, insofar as it refers to the object that was duly defined by the Court’s President (supra para. 8), according to the object of the case, taking into account the body of evidence, the observations of the parties and the sound judgment rules. 44. As regards the experts’ reports, in relation to Mr. Tramsen’s report, the State considered that it was not admissible to ask for it since such report had already been assessed at various judicial instances, in decisions that were not appealed by the representatives of the present petitioners; that the above would imply a revision of the proceedings conducted by the national judicial authorities, and that there is no methodology, among other arguments about its deficiencies. The Court points out that the State reiterated the arguments on admissibility of the report which have already been assessed by the Tribunal in the resolution by which the request to reconsider the matter was rejected (supra para. 26.3). Consequently, the Court has already resolved on the controversy about the admissibility of the report and shall assess the other arguments against this evidence when resolving on the merits of the case. 45. Regarding Mr. Carbonell’s report, the State pointed out that “it was prepared for another case” which “has no relation whatsoever with this case.” According to the State, “this practice favors the unnecessary repetition of arguments,” so the State requested that this expert witness’ deposition be rejected “since it had not been prepared specifically for this case and, therefore, it does not contain the necessary specificity required for any expert witness’ report.” Furthermore, the State requested not to consider the deposition “since the statements included therein have already been evaluated in extenso” in the case of Radilla Pacheco. To that end, the Court notes that such arguments do not prevent