B.2) Admission of the statements of the presumed victims, and of the testimonial and expert evidence 53. With regard to the statements of the presumed victims and the witnesses and the expert opinions provided at the public hearing and by affidavit, the Court considers these pertinent only insofar as they relate to the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the Order requiring them (supra para. 11). These statements will be assessed in the relevant chapter, together with the entire body of evidence, taking into account the observations made by the parties. 51 54. According to this Court’s case law, the statements made by the presumed victims cannot be assessed separately, but only as part of the entire body of evidence in the proceedings, because they are useful insofar as they can provide more information on the alleged violations and their consequences. 52 Accordingly, the Court admits these statements (supra para. 11) and will assess them based on the criteria indicated. 55. In addition, in relation to the affidavits, the State requested that the Court declare inadmissible the statements of Paul Hunt, Antonio Marlasca, Gerardo Escalante and Delia Ribas. Likewise, it made observations on the substance of some of the statements. 56. On the matter of admissibility, the State indicated that the statements of Antonio Marlasca and Paul Hunt omitted any reference to the questions posed by the State, which affects the obligation of procedural cooperation, the principle of good faith, the adversarial principle and the right to defense. The Court reiterates that the fact that the Rules of Procedure permit the parties to submit written questions to the deponents offered by the opposing party and, if applicable, by the Commission, imposes the corresponding obligation of the party that offered the testimony to coordinate and take the necessary steps to forward the questions to the deponents, and that the respective answers are provided. In certain circumstances, failure to answer several questions may be incompatible with the obligation of procedural cooperation and with the principle of good faith that governs international proceedings. 53 Nevertheless, the Court considers that failure to provide answers to the questions of the opposing party does not affect the admissibility of a statement and is an aspect which, depending on the extent of a deponent’s silence, could eventually affect the probative value that an expert opinion might have, and should be assessed when considering the merits of the case. 57. The State argued that “the failure to present” the Spanish translation of Paul Hunt’s statement within the established time frame “breaches the obligation of procedural cooperation and good faith that should govern international proceedings.” The State pointed out that it had “complied with [the requirement] to submit two translations within the same time frame granted the Commission, which clearly implied a reduction in the time for preparing the report,” which “places it in a position of procedural inequality, since it also reduced the time […] granted […] to present the respective comments.” In this regard, the Court observes that the English version of the report was submitted within the established time frame and that there was a delay of seven days in submitting the Spanish version. The 51 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 43. 52 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits, para. 43, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244, para. 27. 53 Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, para. 33, and Case of Uzcátegui et al. v. Venezuela. Merits and reparations. Judgment of September 3, 2012, Series C No. 249, para. 29.