27 68. In regard to the declarations of the alleged victims, the State formulated clarifications or opinions on some matters raised in the depositions of Mrs. Victória Lavinia Grabois Olímpio and Diva Soares Santana. 69. Pursuant to the jurisprudence of the Court, the declarations rendered by the alleged victims cannot be assessed in isolation but rather together with the body of evidence in the process, given that they are useful in the sense that they can offer more information on the alleged violations and their consequences.57 The Court notes that the observations of the State refer to certain aspects regarding the content of both statements, but that it does not contest the admissibility of them. Based on the aforementioned, the Court admits said statements, without failing to consider that the evidence be assessed under the mentioned criteria (supra para. 67) and under the rules of sound judgment. 70. Moreover, the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State presented observations on some testimonial statements. The Commission and the representatives raised other aspects regarding the testimony of Mr. Antunes da Silva. In addition, the representatives added that “the witness exceeded the limits of the objective of his declaration per the Order of [the President,]” which was limited to the activities related to the project Memory Revealed, when he discussed the domestic regulations and the comparative experience. In its final arguments, the State responded to said observations, maintaining, inter alia, that the record, in the affidavit, of a small comparative analysis of the evidence of other countries is the product of the results obtained by the limited contact that the witness has maintained with the representatives and the practitioners of the various archive institutions in Latin America. Moreover, Brazil noted that “the reason for the commentary made regarding the ‘reference to domestic legislation’ was not entirely clear.” It stated that if said observation refers to the access to information, it should be noted that one of the main reasons for the Project Memory Revealed is access to information, and as such the mention of domestic law is appropriate. On the other hand, the representatives made observations on the content of the testimony of Mr. Müller Neto, which the State responded to in its final arguments. 71. The Court noted that neither the Inter-American Commission nor the representatives contested the admissibility of the two mentioned witnesses, but rather they made the clarifications or opinions that they deemed appropriate in content. The Court will assess the content of said declarations as well as the observations indicated, where necessary, in the corresponding sections of this Judgment, in accordance with the appropriate criteria (supra. para. 67). On the other hand, the Court noted that the testimony of Mr. Antunes da Silva refers to the purpose indicated and that the concise comparative references on experiences in the region and the norms that regulate the access to information and activity of the Archive are not outside of the scope. 72. Lastly, the State and the representatives addressed specific expert opinions. Brazil made observations on the expert reports of experts Piovesan, Loreti, Bicudo, Endo, and Uprimny. In regard to the first two, the State offered information and its opinion on the content without contesting the admissibility. On the other hand, in regard to the expert report by expert Bicudo, Brazil indicated that only one part of the expert report “in paragraphs 13 to 38, is in line with its purpose” and that there are statements that are of the personal 57 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.). Reparations and Costs, supra note 45, para. 70; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. supra note 45, para. 52, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 48.