8. The Court notes that the said statement is now documentary evidence, and, in this regard, it will be assessed at the appropriate opportunity, within the context of the existing body of evidence and in accordance with the rules of sound judicial discretion.4 b) Objection to the expert evidence presented by the representatives 9. The State contested the expert opinion of María Laura Subies, proposed by the representatives. The State argued that “the characteristics” of “the expert opinion” of Ms. Subies “are those of a testimony more than that of an expert opinion.” In this regard, the State indicated that the purpose of Ms. Subies’ testimony related “to her experience as the mother of a child with mental disabilities, as regards the possibility of coverage for children with disabilities by the public health care and social assistance systems, describing the situations experienced by parents who have to deal with these institutions, and the responses of the State as regards information about assistance.” The State indicated that “the fact that Ms. Subies is a lawyer does not change this position, because she has been summoned based on her personal experience as the mother of a child with disabilities.” 10. The representatives argued that the State “completely distorts the purpose of the expert opinion proposed” for Ms. Subies “based on her professional role as a lawyer with expertise in the area of disabilities, as [her] curriculum vitae clearly shows.” They added that an “expert witness is someone who, owing to his or her scientific knowledge and/or experience, can provide the Court with information that is useful for understanding any aspect of the case which may demand expert knowledge, qualities that distinguish and describe the testimony of Ms. Subies.” 11. The President observes that the proposed purpose of the expert opinion of Ms. Subies is twofold. First, the representatives propose that “based on her role as a litigation lawyer in the area of disabilities, [she refer to] decision mechanisms and court practices in cases processed by the courts with the same territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction as the one that intervened in the damages proceedings relating to Sebastian Furlan’s accident.” Second, it is proposed that she refer “to her experience as the mother of a mentally disabled child, with regard to the possibilities of public health care and social security coverage for children with disabilities, describing the situations experienced by parents who have to deal with these institutions, and the State’s responses as regards information on assistance.” 12. Based on the above, and having analyzed the purpose of the expert opinion, the President finds that it can help to clarify the facts of this case. With regard to her role as an expert witness, the State does not argue that Ms. Subies had previously taken part in the domestic judicial proceedings or in other aspects of the instant case. Regarding the allegations concerning Ms. Subies’ experience as the mother of a child with disabilities, the President finds that it has not been substantiated that this circumstance means that Ms. Subies has a direct interest in or that she will in some way benefit from the decision in this case and is therefore barred from participating in the capacity proposed under Article 19 of the Statute. In point of fact, expert witnesses are not barred from using their personal experiences as part of their technical presentation. The strengths or weaknesses that this may create in terms of reaching duly documented conclusions on the purpose for which they are convened is an issue that corresponds to the merits of the case. The Court will assess the usefulness of the said testimony, as well as the respective observations of the parties at the appropriate opportunity, in the context of the existing body of evidence and according 4 Similarly, see Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Order of the acting President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for that case of September 8, 2010, considering paragraph 24. 4