28 that their testimony can be given with the greatest freedom. In this regard, the State’s defense cannot rest on the total objection to a statement, when it would be difficult to replace some of its components with other probative means.53 103. Regarding the testimony of Mr. Maynez Grijalva, the State questioned its veracity and affirmed that, on several points, the witness offered personal opinions without any evidence to support them. The Tribunal will not take the mere opinions of the witness into consideration and will weigh each of his affirmations that are relevant for this case, against the rest of the evidence. 104. The State asked the Court to reject the testimony of Mrs. Delgadillo Pérez, because the deponent had exceeded the purpose of her testimony and given personal opinions. The Court indicates that the witness’s opinions will not be taken into account. The Tribunal will assess the statements of the witness that exceed the purpose of her testimony, if they are helpful to decide this case. 105. Regarding the testimony of Mr. Hinojos, the State indicated that he is “the legal representative of Edgar Álvarez Cruz, who has been sentenced and convicted for his responsibility in the murder of a woman in Ciudad Juárez [and h]is testimony is invalid because he could be trying to act in favor of his client.” In this regard, the Court reiterates that, pursuant to in 48(1) of the Rules of Procedure, witnesses are obliged to speak “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” regarding the facts and circumstances of which they are aware. In order to verify whether Mr. Hinojos spoke the truth, the Court will assess his testimony in conjunction with the other evidence, when examining the merits of the case. 106. As regards the testimony of Mrs. Pérez Torres, the State asked the Court to reject it, inter alia, because it was not made before notary public as required by the President. The Court confirms that, according to the case file, there is no evidence that the representatives sent the statement of said witness before a notary public; accordingly, the Court decides to reject it, because it was not made in accordance with the instructions given by the President (supra para. 10). 107. Regarding the testimony of witnesses Murguía González, Castañón Torres, Galindo López and Camberos Revilla, the representatives questioned the information they provided and contested their credibility, which will be verified by the Court when it examines the merits of the case, using sound judicial discretion and taking into account the rest of the evidence. 108. The Court observes that several documents cited by the parties in their respective briefs were not provided to the Court, including some corresponding to the State’s public institutions that could be found on the Internet. Similarly, the parties included direct links to Internet pages. In the instant case, the Court observes that documents provided in this way are pertinent and the parties were able to contest them, but did not. Accordingly, these documents are accepted and placed in the case file, because legal certainty and the procedural balance of the parties were not affected. VII VIOLENCE AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN IN THIS CASE ARTICLES 4 (RIGHT TO LIFE)54, 5 (RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT)55, 7 (RIGHT TO 53 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra note 6, thirty-sixth considering paragraph. 54 Article 4(1) of the Convention stipulates: Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.