the alleged victim, Karen Atala, which shall be assessed according to the aforementioned criterion. 26. Furthermore, regarding the expert witnesses, the State made several observations based on, in general: a) its disagreement with the content of some of the expert opinions, contradicting or giving its opinion regarding such reports; b) the scope of the statements of the expert witnesses in relation to the purpose of the expert opinion, which, on occasion, the State considers to be biased or merely personal observations; c) some elements used to render such an opinion and d) the methodology used to render some of the opinions. 27. The Court considers it pertinent to point out that, unlike witnesses, who should avoid giving personal opinions, expert witnesses may offer technical or personal opinions as long as these are related to their special knowledge or experience. In addition, experts may refer both to specific matters of the case or any other relevant point of the litigation, provided that these concern the purpose for which they were convened and the conclusions are well founded33. As to observations concerning the content of the expert opinions, the Court finds that such observations do not challenge their admissibility, but seek to question their evidentiary value, for which reason these shall be considered, if pertinent, in the relevant chapters of this Judgment. 28. In particular, regarding the observations made by the State about the alleged “lack of objectivity and the personal considerations” made by expert witness Espinoza, which fall outside the purpose for which she was summoned, the Court shall consider the State’s observation and repeats that it shall admit only those statements that serve the purpose duly stipulated (supra para. 17). Regarding the methodology of the expert report of Ms. Espinoza, notwithstanding the objection made by the State, the Court notes that, in said report, there is an explanation of the procedure followed. Expert witness Espinoza pointed out that she based her report on the meetings held with the López Atala girls and their mother, as well as on various precedents. The Court considers that the objections to the method used by the expert witness, which stem from the report itself, do not affect its admissibility. V RIGHT TO EQUALITY AND NON-DISCRIMINATION, RIGHT TO PRIVATE LIFE, RIGHT TO FAMILY LIFE, RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS REGARDING THE CUSTODY PROCEEDING 29. Firstly, the Court considers it necessary to emphasize that the purpose of the present case is not to determine whether the mother or the father offered the three girls a better home (infra paras. ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia. to ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.). In this case, the dispute between the parties concerns two aspects: i) the custody suit filed by the father of the girls and ii) the disciplinary proceeding conducted against Ms. Atala. This chapter focuses on the debates surrounding the custody trial. In a subsequent chapter, the disciplinary proceeding will be analyzed. 32 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo, supra note 31, para 43 and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 26, para 34. 33 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C N° 197, para. 42; and Case of Barrios Family, supra note 31, para 28. 13