27 Within the time allotted for this, the Inter-American Commission submitted its observations on the expert opinions of said expert witnesses. This Court notes that the statements of said expert witnesses sought to disprove certain facts regarding the merits of the case. Because of the international responsibility accepted by the State (supra 25, 27 and 31-38), the Court will not consider these statements within the body of evidence. 60. After the Commission submitted the expert opinion of Emilio García Méndez, pursuant to the March 6, 2003 Order of the Court (supra 27 and 28), the State filed its observations, within the time allowed for this purpose (supra 27 and 28), and pointed out that it deemed that the presentation of the facts and conclusions of the expert opinion are “based on dogmatic statements.” In this regard, the State argued that: a) the deductions made by the expert witness regarding the link between abuse in police practices and the phenomenology of said practices based on the Bulacio Case are hypothetical; and b) the expert witness seems to “ignore” the steps taken by Argentina to comply with its international commitments regarding this matter, both before and after the facts in the Bulacio case. 61. Likewise, after the State submitted expert opinion Máximo Emiliano Sozza, within the time allowed for this purpose (supra 27 and 28), the Commission stated that it “agree[d] with the historical, juridical and sociological analysis by the expert witness [...], however, it consider[ed] his answers to be at least ‘incomplete’.” In this regard, the Commission stated that: a) even though there have been legislative changes in the city of Buenos Aires regarding detentions to check police records and in the police edict system, the expert opinion omitted the fact that in most Argentine provinces this type of “arbitrary detentions” continues to be practiced; b) likewise, the expert opinion does not state that the legislative changes that took place in the city of Buenos Aires only involved modification of the terms, but not of the powers granted to the police, a fact that has even been stated by expert witness Sozzo in other publications of his; c) the expert opinion does not mention the impact of the Bulacio Case on the changes that he considers positive, which were in response to pressure by the citizenry due to the impact of this case; and d) in conclusion, “there is no substantial disagreement between the position of the Argentine State and the position of the Inter-American Commission and the representatives of the Bulacio family;” however, the legislative amendments discussed “are not sufficient to avoid recidivism of cases such as that of Walter David Bulacio.” 62. The Court has ascertained that the expert opinions of expert witnesses Máximo Emiliano Sozzo and Emilio García Méndez were contributed to the proceedings by means of the brief. The parties had a procedural opportunity to submit observations on the expert opinion offered by the counterpart, thus