- 22 - this process on the investigation of human rights violations, including this case, and 6) Luis González de León, expert witness proposed by the State, who provided information on the process for the demobilization of the paramilitary groups in Colombia, from a legal and practical perspective, on the implementation of the Justice and Peace Law, the supposed guarantees for the rights of the victims to the truth, justice and reparation under the said process, and the measures that have been taken to guarantee the rights of the victims in the case of paramilitaries demobilized and extradited to the United States of America. On ending his statement, Mr. González de León delivered his expert opinion in writing. B) Assessment of the evidence 56. In this case, as in others, the Court accepts the probative value of the documents presented by the parties at the proper procedural opportunity that were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not questioned.60 57. The State asked the Court not to accept the opinion of expert witness Federico Andreu Guzmán because it considered that the purpose of the expert opinion was entirely outside the case, because it referred to a context related to facts prior to the Court’s temporal jurisdiction and it reached conclusions about the violence in Colombia at a time that did not correspond to this case. If this was not possible, the State requested that the military manuals mentioned in the said opinion not be taking into account because, inter alia, it had not been sent a copy of the manuals in order to verify their authenticity. In this regard, in relation to the purpose established for the instant case (supra paras. 49 to 52), the Court considers that the State’s observations refer to matters of probative value and not to the admissibility of the evidence.61 Therefore, in application of the provisions of 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure, the Court incorporates into the body of evidence in the instant case the expert opinion of Federico Andreu Guzmán, comprising the opinion give in the case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia and the complementary opinion, and will assess it, taking into account the objections raised by the State. Moreover, regarding the State’s objections to the expert opinion of Michael Reed Hurtado, since they relate to the probative value of the opinion, they will be assessed as pertinent when the Court examines the merits of the dispute. 58. The State contested the incorporation of the documents forwarded by the representatives together with their final arguments.62 The Court notes that these documents consist of laws, documents from criminal cases relating to proceedings before the Constitutional Court, letters and communications, newspaper articles, and diverse types of information. Although, in principle, their presentation was timebarred, the Court incorporates the documents relating to the criminal investigation of 60 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 36, para. 140; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 57, para. 58, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 24, para. 70. 61 62 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra note 54, para. 43. In particular, it contested the inclusion of the attachments that were not cited in the brief and underscored that the presentation of these documents was time-barred. It also indicated that attachments 15 and 16 (newspaper articles) “do not constitute supervening evidence and there was no serious impediment to their prior presentation”; and that attachment 19 (a reference table) was not a piece of evidence or an official document, but was prepared by the representatives and should be understood as such in the proceedings.