13 notorious and public acts or statements made by State’s officers or when they bear out some aspects related to the case.31 Assessment of Testimonial Evidence 30. The Tribunal admits the testimony rendered before the Court by Mrs. María Salvador Chiriboga (supra para. 20(a)) inasmuch as it coincides with the purpose intended by the President in its Order of September 17, 2007 (supra note 18) and shall assess it within the context of the body of evidence. Furthermore, the Court reasserts what has been previously pointed out with regard the assessment of such statement, given the fact that it was rendered by the alleged victim of the instant case (supra para. 23). Assessment of Expert Evidence 31. As to the expert opinion rendered by Mr. Edgar Neira Orellana before the Court (supra para. 20(b)), this Court admits it and assess it on the basis of sound judgment and inasmuch as it complies with the purpose set forth by the Order of September 17, 2007 (supra note 18). 32. As to the statement made by Mr. Gonzalo Estupiñán Narváez (supra para. 20.c), this Tribunal admits it into the body of evidence taking into account what has been established in the ninth considering clause of the Court's Order of October 18, 2007 and the purpose of the expert report set forth in such Order (supra note 19) and assess it on the basis of the body of evidence and sound judgment rules. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTION “Non-Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies” 33. In the brief of the answer to the complaint, the State filed the preliminary objection called “Non-exhaustion of Domestic Remedies” (supra para. 10 and 11). Accordingly, the Court shall now proceed to analyze said preliminary objection. 34. In the answer to the complaint of May 17, 2007, the State raised the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It pointed out that there is a condemnation proceeding in the domestic jurisdiction still pending resolution and its processing has been delayed due to the filing of remedies by the alleged victim's representatives. The basis of this statement is that in the same narration of the facts contained in the brief of requests and arguments filed by the representatives, there is a description of a long process in which the representatives did not mention that it has been the alleged victim who “[…] has interrupted and delayed the proceedings by means of the filing of multiple and groundless procedural remedies […]”. According to the State, the Court should sustain this objection given the fact that it was filed at the first stage of the proceedings before the Commission. Finally, the State pointed out that if the objection is not admitted "[...] it would mean not complying with the terms established in Article 47 of the Convention [...]". 31 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 22, para. 146; and Case of Albán Cornejo et al., supra note 21, para. 35; and Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 21, para. 67.