has deprived them of any probative value”; (b) “contradictions” in the affidavit prepared by Janice Midi on September 24, 2013, and filed for the first time a preliminary objection of the Court’s lack of competence ratione temporis to examine the presumed facts and acts established in the factual framework with regard to the “Fils-Aimé Midi family.” Secondly, if the objection was rejected, it requested the “exclusion from the case file of […] Marilobi Fils-Aimé, Andren Fils-Aimé, Carolina Fils-Aimé, […] Juan Fils-Aimé and Nené Fils-Aimé” and “reiterate[d] its request to close the case with regard to this family”; (c) regarding the statements of Antonio Sensión and Ana Lidia Sensión of September 29, 2013, it repeated its position that the Court “lacks competence ratione temporis to examine the factual framework of the presumed violations to the detriment of the members of the [Sensión] family, and formally requested that both affidavits be excluded from the case file”; (d) considerations concerning the affidavits of Bersson Gelin of September 24, 2013, and of Rafaelito Pérez Charles and Marlene Mesidor of September 29, 2013, without contesting their admissibility, and (e) that the affidavit of September 29, 2013, with the statement of Markenson Jean “indirectly introduces the statements of Miguel Jean, Victoria Jean and Natalie Jean, which is inadmissible”; hence it asked that “the reference to those persons be excluded when examining the affidavit.” 149. As already indicated, the preliminary objections filed by the State in its final written arguments are inadmissible, pursuant to Article 42(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure (supra para. 48). As regards the State’s requests to “exclude from the case file” Willian Medina Ferreras, Awilda Medina Ferreras, Marilobi Fils-Aimé, Andren Fils-Aimé, Carolina Fils-Aimé and Juan Fils-Aimé and Nené Fils-Aimé, the Court refers back to the respective decisions already taken with regard to these individuals in the Court’s considerations with regard to the preliminary objections and in the section on the determination of the presumed victims (supra paras. 78, 83 to 87, 92 and 93). In the case of Bersson Gelin, Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Markenson Jean and Marlene Mesidor, the State’s observations refer to the probative value of their statements and are therefore not directly linked to the admissibility of the evidence. As for the other observations presented in its final arguments relating to the statements of Willian Medina Ferreras and Awilda Medina, the State indicated various “contradictions” in the statements; also, that they had committed “perjury” and that the statements were “completely invalid.” In this regard, the Court also considers that the State was referring to assessments of the statements and not to their admissibility. Regarding the statements of Antonio Sensión and Ana Lidia Sensión, the State based its arguments on a preliminary objection (supra paras. 35 to 37) and did not contest their admissibility as evidence. Consequently, the Court admits the respective statements. C.2. Considerations on the expert evidence 150. The State’s observations on the expert opinions in its final written arguments. Regarding the expert opinion of Carlos Quesada, the State affirmed that “the content [of this expert opinion] had been totally discredited and was devoid of any persuasive power” and, in response to a question posed by one of the judges, according to the State, “he lied.” In the expert opinion of Bridget Wooding, the State also contested the content included under the sub-headings: “(1) The Hatillo and Palma incidents and their aftereffects (2005), pp. 6-8; and (2) The immigration system, pp. 8-12,” considering that they did not correspond to the purpose of her expert opinion. 105 The Court notes that the State’s observations with regard to the expert opinion of Carlos Quesada relate to opinions on the significance of its content, and not on its admissibility. Regarding the comments on the expert opinion of Bridget Wooding, the Court will consider the content of the expert 105 In addition, with regard to the expert opinions provided during the public hearing, the State submitted considerations on the expert opinion of Pablo Ceriani Cernadas, without contesting it. 46