27 Tribunal will assess the sources on which the expert witness based her conclusions and the lapse in time to which her opinion refers, when examining the merits of the case. 97. In relation to Mrs. Lagarde y de los Ríos, the State presented a series of doubts about the data provided by the expert witness, and asked the Court to consider them when establishing the probative value of the expertise. When it examines the merits of the case, the Court will analyze the expert opinion in conjunction with the other evidence in the case file, taking into account the State’s observations. 98. Regarding the expert opinion of Mrs. Jusidman Rapoport, the State indicated that it contained outdated information and therefore asked the Court to reject it. The Court finds that, even if the opinion contains outdated information, this is not sufficient reasons to reject it, but to assess it within the time span to which it refers and taking into account the newer evidence that the parties have provided. Moreover, the Tribunal observes that the expert witness expanded motu propio the purpose of her opinion, and no objection was raised by the parties. In view of the foregoing, and considering that the expansion is helpful in the instant case, the Court accepts it, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 99. As regards expert witness Monárrez Fragoso, the State objected that the expert opinion was based on a research project carried out for a purpose other than the opinion; that the expert witness referred to cases that were not included in the instant proceedings; that the statistical data presented by the expert witness had not been updated and also, according to the State, that some of the terminology used by the expert witness does not exist in domestic legislation. The Tribunal finds that the initial purpose of the research carried out by the expert witness has no impact on the probative value of her expert opinion; that the cases to which the expert witness refers are relevant to assess the context of this case; that the opinion will be taken into consideration within the time span to which it refers, and that the issues relating to terminology and probative value will be examined together with the merits of the case. 100. Regarding the testimony of Mrs. Castro Romero, the representatives contradicted several of her assertions; if pertinent, this will be assessed by the Court together with the merits of the case. 101. With regard to the testimony of Mr. Bosio, the State indicated that the witness had analyzed some of the forensic medicine reports on the bodies found in the Cotton Field in 2001 and that “the witness cannot confirm the elaboration of these reports directly, because he only intervened in the case in 2005”; that the Commission should have proposed his statement as an expert opinion and not as testimony, and that the witness had arrived at conclusions that “he cannot confirm and that are not his own.” In this regard, the Court reiterates that a witness may refer to facts and circumstances that he is aware of in relation to the purpose of his testimony and should avoid giving personal opinions;52 hence, the Court will not take into consideration any aspect which is merely an opinion of witness Bosio. 102. Regarding the testimony of Mrs. Doretti, the State contested it because “it presents confidential information that could affect the investigation into the murders” of the alleged victims. In this regard, the Court confirms the contents of the order of the President of March 18, 2009 (supra para. 10), which reads: For the effects of the international proceedings before this Court, the conflict of rights between the obligation of confidentiality and the international public interest to clarify the facts relating to the scope of the attribution of responsibility to the State is resolved by offering the greatest possible protection to the witnesses who appear before the Court so 52 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra note 6, forty-seventh considering paragraph.