incurred expenses and the time to do so was precluded. Therefore, the State requested its inadmissibility. 59. This Court notes that annex 1, referring to an indictment dated February 26, 2019, presented by the prosecutor CVN of the Special Prosecutor against impunity of the Public Prosecution before the Judge of the First Court of First Instance for Criminal Justice, DrugTrafficking and Environmental Crime, related to the "Gavilán Plan", is linked to this case, and admits it for this reason. As for annex 2, corresponding to the report "Illegal networks and political crisis: reality of the Guatemalan Congress", it refers in general to the political situation in Guatemala, which has no direct connection with this case, and therefore does not admit it. Finally, annex 3, referring to the folder of incurred expenses, was not presented. B. Admissibility of testimonial and expert evidence 60. The Court deems it pertinent to admit a statement made before the twenty-eighth notary public,28 insofar as it meets the purpose defined by the President in the order for its receipt. Notwithstanding the foregoing, specific considerations will be made below, and the disputes raised on the admissibility of other statements or opinions will be resolved. 61. The State presented various observations regarding the probative value of the following expert opinions rendered by a) Olga Patricia Roldán Monterroso, b) Leonel González Postigo, and c) Dennis Martínez. 62. This Court understands that the State does not challenge its admissibility, but rather questions its probative value. Consequently, it admits the expert opinions of Olga Patricia Roldán Monterroso and Leonel González Postigo, which will be considered as pertinent as long as they meet to the ordered purpose and taking into account the observations of the State. Regarding the expert opinion of Dennis Martínez, the State distorted the expert opinion alleging that “the document is falsified” in accordance with Guatemalan legislation due to an error in the form in which it was presented. In this regard, Mr. Martínez gave his expert opinion before a public notary, which due to its characteristics is different from that of a testimonial statement, and in this sense, the assessment of its content is not subject to the formalities required for testimonial evidence. However, its probative value will depend on whether it adheres to the ordered purpose and the body of evidence as a whole. Therefore, this Court admits the expert opinion of Mr. Martínez. 63. The State presented various observations regarding the statements of Florinda López de López, Rosa María Mendoza López and Cristóbal Gerónimo Chales. This Court notes that the State in its observations on the statements questions their content, so the Court understands that it is not challenging their admissibility, but rather questions their evidential value.29 Consequently, this Court admits the aforementioned statements, which will be considered as relevant as long as they meet the ordered purpose and taking the observations of the State into account. VII FACTS 64. This chapter will establish the facts of the case and, where relevant, the facts in dispute, based on the factual framework submitted to the Court by the Commission, taking into account The Court received the statement by affidavit from Luis Fernando Valenzuela Ruiz. Regarding the allusions made by the State related to their status as presumed victims, this Court refers to what has already been decided (supra para. 52). 28 29 17