12 Commission's petition and before the issuance of the Order of the President. This Court verifies that the expert opinions were rendered in March, 2007, from which it can be deduced that, in fact, they were rendered prior to the Order of the President that so required them. This Tribunal notes that said expert opinions were presented to the Inter-American Commission during the proceedings brought before it and that the Commission attached them to the application. Based on the foregoing, pursuant to Article 44(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court admits the previously mentioned expert opinions, which it shall assess on the basis of the body of evidence and sound judgment. 39. Moreover, the State also challenged the expert opinion rendered by Rosario Baptista Canedo since “it lacks from the objectivity typical of a procedural and technical expert report, due to the fact that far from doing an analysis of the [thirteen] volumes that form part of the case file […], she only briefly analyzes the first [four] volumes of the case file”, resulting thereby incomplete. Regarding the argument of the State, this Court has verified that said expert opinion is incomplete, as mentioned by the State, since it does not cover the entire case file. Nevertheless, that argument is not a sufficient ground to suppress this evidence for that it shall be assessed in the corresponding section. 40. As to the expert opinion rendered by Ana María Romero del Campero (supra para. 32(f)), which has not been challenged by the State, the Court admits it taking into account the purpose of said expert opinion established by the Order of the President of June 9, 2008 and shall assess it on the basis of the body of evidence and sound judgment. 41. As to the testimony rendered by Hugo Ticona (supra para. 33), which has not been challenged by the State, this Tribunal considers it is relevant inasmuch as it adjusts to the purpose defined by the Order of the President, by means of which such evidence was requested (supra note 5) and it also points out that it must be assessed together with all the evidence and not in isolation, since the deponent has a direct interest in the case.18 42. As to the press releases submitted by the Commission, the representative and the State, this Tribunal has considered that such documentation could be assessed whenever they relate to notorious and public acts or statements made by State's officers or when they bear out some aspects related to the case.19 43. As the evidentiary items incorporated into the body of evidence of the instant case that have been assessed, the Court shall now proceed to analyze the alleged violations considering the facts already acknowledged and those which may come to be proven,20 included in each chapter as pertinent. Likewise, the Court shall consider the parties’ arguments it deems relevant, taking into consideration the acceptance of facts and acquiescence to the claims made by the State. 18 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Perú, supra note 17, para. 43; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 13, para. 68; and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 16, para. 49. 19 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 16, para. 146; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 13, para. 79; and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 16, para. 38. 20 This Judgment refers to facts that this Tribunal considers proven taking into account the State's acceptance of facts. Some of these facts have been completed with evidentiary items or they are supervening facts, in which case there appear the corresponding notes at the footnotes.