- 17 Regarding the expert opinion of Carmen Wurst, the State questioned the methodology used, raising doubts about the quality of the report and its proper scientific rigor, as well as the fact that Ms. Wurst, who was a psychologist, had made a medical diagnosis. In the case of the expert opinion of Ben Saul, the State questioned the precedents used, the analysis made, and that he had not answered one of the questions posed by Peru. On the latter point, the Court recalls that it has asserted that the facat that the Rules of Procedure establish the possibility that the parties may pose written questions to the deponents offered by the other party and, when appropriate, by the Commission, imposes the corresponding obligation of the party that offered the statement to coordinate and take the necessary steps to forward the questions to the deponents and to ensure that they include the respective answers. In certain circumstances, the fact that different questions are not answered may be incompatible with the obligation of procedural cooperation and the principle of good faith that governs the international proceedings. Despite this, the Court has considered that the failure to answer the questions of the other party does not affect the admissibility of a statement and is an aspect that, based on the implications of the silences of a deponent, may have an impact on the probative weight of the respective statement, an aspect that must be assessed when examining the merits of the case.35 Accordingly, the Court will take these observations into account when assessing the evidence. 52. The State also asserted “its most vehement rejection” of the statements made by Wong Ho Wing, his wife and brother, that the extradition request was the result of political persecution. The Court considers that the State’s objections refer to the content of these statements and not to their admissibility. The arguments contained in the said statements will be assessed when analyzing the merits of the matter, taking into account the corresponding observations of the State. C. Assessment of the evidence 53. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its consistent case law regarding evidence and its assessment, 36 the Court will examine and assess the documentary evidence provided by the parties and the Commission, the videos, the statements, testimony, and expert opinions, as well as the helpful evidence requested by this Court and incorporated into the file when establishing the facts of the case and ruling on the merits. To this end, it will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework, taking into account the whole body of evidence and the arguments presented in this case.37 54. Also, in accordance with this Court’s case law, the statement made by the presumed victim cannot be assessed in isolation, but rather in the context of all the evidence in the proceedings, insofar as it may provide further information on the presumed violations and their consequences.38 VIII PROVEN FACTS 35 Cf. Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244, para. 33, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 115. 36 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 to 76, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 129. 37 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 76, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 129. 38 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 131.