28 opinion of the expert. The State held that the expert exceeded the purpose of the expert report, and thus, requested that said statements not be considered. In regard to the expert report of Mr. Endo, Brazil recalled the purpose and noted that the expert should stay within the scope of it as well as avoid personal comments on historic facts when they are not related to the perceptions of the next of kin. Moreover, it stated that in some sections of the expert opinion it was not clear if the expert reflected the perceptions of the next of kin or his own personal opinion on the facts and historic events, highlighting the importance of said distinction. In addition, the State mentioned that it also was not clear if the expert carried out personal interviews with all the next of kin of the disappeared of the Guerrilha do Araguaia, a measure considered necessary to establish the nature of the non-pecuniary damages, or if it was done with only some of the people affected. In addition, Brazil presented observations on specific measures recommended by the expert. Lastly, in regard to the expert statement of Mr. Uprimny, in its final arguments, the State questioned the content and methodology used as a basis for the expert report, providing the opinion of a person regarding the expert statement and a press release that disputed the affirmations of said expert (supra para. 63). 73. On its behalf, the representatives presented observations on the expert reports of the experts Martins and Chaves de Rezende Martins. Regarding the first, they stated that the expert went outside of the scope established from the purpose set by the President given that it refers expressly to other initiatives of the State such as the Amnesty Commission and the Special Commission on Political Deaths and Disappearances of Persons. Moreover, the expert made a substantive consideration of the work of the State, which was unnecessary for the purpose of the expert statement. Finally, the representatives made observations on the content of the expert report related to the Amnesty Law. In its final arguments, Brazil responded to said observations and, among other considerations, noted that the analysis of the Amnesty Law cannot be viewed distinctly now from the time when it was created, nor from the foundations in which it was based. On the other hand, regarding the expert opinion of expert Chaves de Rezende Martins, aside from making some general observations, the representatives noted that the report did not provide an analysis of the historic Brazilian experience, diverging it from the objective defined by the President (supra para. 52, numeral 34). 74. The Inter-American Court notes that the observations of the State and the representatives are based, in general terms, on: a) their disagreement with the content of the expert reports, contradicting or offering their opinion on them; b) the reach of that stated by the experts, indicating that some of these manifestations are not within the scope of the purpose of the expert statement; c) the expert presented personal opinions, and d) the methodology used to carry out the report. 75. This Court considers it appropriate to note that, unlike the witnesses who must avoid giving personal opinions, the expert witnesses offer technical or personal opinions, in as much as they relate to their special knowledge or experience. Moreover, the experts can refer both to specific points of the litis as well as to any relevant point of the litigation, when and if they limit the opinion to the purpose for which they were summoned and their conclusions are sufficiently well-founded.58 In addition, regarding the observations on the content of the expert opinions, the Court understands that the admissibility is 58 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo, supra note 39, para. 42; Case of Fernández Ortega et al., supra note 53, para. 61, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. supra note 45, para. 68.