14 them (supra para. 10) and with the purpose of the instant case.31 42. The State presented various observations and asked the Court to assess these, in particular, those regarding the transfer of the expert opinions to the present case, as well as in relation to the testimonies rendered by affidavit by Vibeke Ann Muelle and Jesús Aníbal Flores. First, the Court will refer to the President’s Order of July 27, 2018 (supra para. 10), in relation to the admissibility of the corresponding statements and the relevance of transferring the expert opinions. The Court also considers that the State’s observations call into question the evidentiary weight of the statements, which does not pose a problem in terms of their admissibility.32 This Court will assess the State’s observations regarding the evidentiary value of the statements and expert opinions admitted, as applicable, together with the entire body of evidence in the present case. VI FACTS C. Background 43. Oscar Muelle Flores is a civil engineer33 who worked for a mining company, the Empresa Minera Especial Tintaya S.A. (hereinafter “Tintaya S.A.” or “Tintaya company”), from June 1, 1981, until September 30, 1990.34 Tintaya S.A. was a State-owned enterprise until it was privatized in November 1994 (infra para. 57). During that time, Mr. Muelle held various different positions within the company, the last one being the position of Assistant General Manager until his retirement.35 44. On May 15, 1990, the State-owned company issued Resolution No. AD-0884/90-R, according to which Mr. Muelle Flores was included in the pension scheme under Decree Law No. 20530 “Rules Governing Pensions and Benefits for Civil Servants in the Service of the State,”36 which acknowledged that Mr. Muelle had provided services to the State for 35 years, 10 months and 27 days. 37 45. The decision to include Mr. Muelle Flores in the aforementioned pension scheme was based on Board of Directors Decisions No. 155/88 of December 22, 1988 and No. 029/90 of February 8, 1990 38, which authorized the government to include company employees in that pension scheme and established the corresponding regulations for that purpose.39 The Court received the statements rendered by affidavit from the witnesses offered by the representatives, namely, Vibeke Ann Muelle Jensen and Jesús Aníbal Delgado Flores, together with the expert opinions of Christian Courtis and César Gonzáles Hunt, offered by the Commission and the State, respectively. The purpose of these statements are established in the Order of the President of July 27, 2018 (supra para. 10). Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/muelle_27_07_18.pdf 31 32 Cf. Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, supra, 33, and Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 69. 33 Cf. Curriculum vitae of Oscar Muelle Flores (evidence file, folios 1482 to 1483 and 1486 to 1487). 34 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 2, 1993 (evidence file, folio 13), and Brief No. 2 of the law firm Laos, Aguilar, Celi & Vinatea Abogados, of September 24, 1996 (evidence file, folio 4). 35 Cf. Brief of the Pension Standardization Office (ONP) presented before the Administrative Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima of September 24, 1996 (evidence file, folio 4). 36 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 2, 1993 (evidence file, folio 13), and Brief No. 2 of the law firm Laos, Aguilar, Celi & Vinatea Abogados, of September 24, 1996 (evidence file, folio 4). 37 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 10, 1999 (evidence file, folio 28) and Brief No. 2 of the law firm Laos, Aguilar, Celi & Vinatea Abogados, of September 24, 1996 (evidence file, folio 4). 38 Cf. Opinion No. 735-97 issued by the Senior Prosecutor for Administrative Matters before the Constitutional and Social Chamber of the Supreme Court on August 22, 1997 (evidence file, folio 10 to 11). Cf. Application for amparo filed by Oscar Muelle Flores before the Fifth Civil Court of Lima on April 18, 1991 (evidence file, folio 16), and Resolution No. 6 issued by the Fifth Civil Court of Lima on July 19, 1991 (evidence file, folio 22). 39