may refer both to specific points of the litigation and to any other relevant aspect of the litigation, provided they limit themselves to the purpose for which they were summoned, and their findings are sufficiently founded.66 In this regard, in relation to the observations on the content of the expert opinions, the Court understands that the observations do not contest their admissibility, but rather are designed to question the probative value of the opinions, the pertinent parts of which will be considered in the corresponding chapters of this Judgment. 75. In particular, regarding the State's claim that the expert opinions of Daniel Coronell and Ana Maria Diaz do not correspond to the purpose determined by the President, the Court will consider the State's observations and reiterates that it only admits those statements that conform to the purpose that was defined. 76. Based on the above, the Court admits the expert opinions to the extent that they conform to purpose defined in the Order and will assess them together with the rest of the body of evidence, taking into account the State’s observations and in accordance with the rules of sound judicial discretion. VIII PROVEN FACTS A) Attack against Mr. Vélez Restrepo on August 29, 1996 77. Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo, also known as “Richard,” worked as a cameraman for the national news program, “Colombia 12:30,” with offices in Bogota. According to Mr. Vélez Restrepo, at that time he was a “reporter on law and order”; in other words, he mainly covered facts or news related to “public order.”67 Mr. Vélez Restrepo lived in Bogotá, with his wife Aracelly Román Amariles and their children Mateo and Juliana Vélez Román, who were approximately four and a half years old and eighteen months old, respectively.68 78. On August 29, 1996, Mr. Vélez Restrepo was in the municipality of Morelia, department of Caquetá, covering the incidents of one of the protest marches against the Government’s policy of fumigating the coca crop, known as “coca marches.”69 During that month, marches took place with tens of thousands of people, including coca-growing 66 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 42, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 28. 67 Cf. statement made by Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held on February 24, 2012. 68 Cf. Statement made by Luis Gonzalo Restrepo on June 25, 2005, before a notary public of the District of Columbia, United States of America (file of annexes to Merits Report 136/10, tome I, annex 15, folios 78 to 82, and file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, tome II, attachment 16, folios 655 to 660); statement made by Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo before the Court during the public hearing held on February 24, 2012, and statement made by Aracelly Román Amariles on July 25, 2005, before a notary public of the District of Columbia, United States of America (file of annexes to Merits Report 136/10, tome I, annex 16, folios 74 to 88, and file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, tome II, attachment 17, folios 662 to 666). 69 Cf. preliminary report dated September 5, 1996, of the Attorney Delegated to the Defense of Human Rights of the Attorney General’s Office on the disturbances that occurred on August 29, 1996, in the municipality of Morelía, Caquetá (file of helpful evidence presented by the State, tome IV, folios 1666 to 1674); article published in the magazine “Cambio” of September 2, 1996, entitled “Batalla sobre el puente” [Battle on the bridge] (file of annexes to Merits Report 136/10, tome I, annex 1, folio 5), and newspaper article published in “El Mundo” on August 31, 1996, entitled “Polémica por golpes a la libertad de prensa” [Polemic owing to blows to press freedom] (file of annexes to Merits Report 136/10, tome I, annex 8, folio 55 to 58) 25