20 the admissibility of the report and the Tribunal shall determine, in the merits of the case, up to what extent the opinion is pertinent to resolve some disputed issues. 46. As regards Mr. Castresana’s expert report, the State indicated that “the witness statements in chapter VIII of his brief are clearly not about the purpose for which his deposition was requested, but it shows that the document is biased and that it lacks objectivity;” due to this reason it requested to reject such deposition. The State added that “the expert witness maliciously introduced his point of view in the reports issued by the United Nations Committee on Torture” and, therefore, “they do not adjust to the purpose of his deposition, invalidating it even further.” In relation to expert witness Piñeyro, the State indicated that “his expert report included statements based on no grounds […], making generalizations showing serious lack of objectivity” and that “the expert witness makes serious accusations against the Armed Forces based on no grounds either since he has no evidence to prove it.” Regarding the expert report of Mr. López Portillo Vargas, the State pointed out that “his opinion is false” and that “the country has the necessary control standards in place to sanction and punish any abuse from any authority, including those of the Armed Forces in relation to security tasks.” 47. As regards the opinion by Mrs. Deutsch and Mr. Quiroga, the State submitted various arguments on the methodology they used, the alleged deficiencies and errors made, among other issues, in order to disprove the burden of the proof. 48. As regards the arguments against the expert witnesses regarding the methodology they used and other deficiencies, the Tribunal considers it is pertinent to point out that, unlike witnesses, who shall avoid offering personal opinions, experts witnesses may offer technical or personal opinions as long as they refer to their special knowledge or experience. Additionally, the experts may refer both to specific matters of the action or any other relevant subject of the litigation, as long as they are limited to the object for which they were convened.39 The expert witness’ conclusions shall be well enough founded. In the first place, the Tribunal notes that the expert reports refer to the purpose for which they were ordered (supra paras. 25 and 26). Additionally, regarding the expert opinions by Messrs. Castresana, López Portillo, Piñeyro, Quiroga and Mrs. Deutsch, the Court notes that the statements made by Mexico refer to the merits of the case and to the burden of the proof of their opinions, matters that shall be considered, if applicable, in the corresponding chapters of the Judgment, within the specific framework of the purpose for which they were convened and taking into account what the State has pointed out. 4. Considerations on the alleged “supervening evidence” 49. On May 28, 2010 the representatives submitted three documents as supervening evidence: the Final Observations issued on April 7, 2010 by the Committee on Human Rights regarding the report submitted by Mexico in view of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,40 the Report issued on May 27, 2009 on the visit to Mexico of the Sub-Committee for the Prevention of Torture 39 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C N° 197, para. 42; Case of Fernández Ortega et al v. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C N° 215; para. 61; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 68. 40 United Nations. Committee on Human Rights. Final Observations of the Committee on Human Rights. Evaluation of the reports presented by the States Parties in light of article 40 of the Covenant (Mexico). Doc. ONU CCPRlC/MEXlCO/5, April 7, 2010.