12 an expert opinion about the way by which the State should make the payments that she considers are still pending compliance in light of the judgments rendered by the Constitutional Court of Perú in the case at hand. The foregoing adjusts, at least partially, to the purpose of the expert report required by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Court takes into account the observations presented by the State and considers that said statement may contribute to the determination, by the Tribunal, of the facts in the instant case, inasmuch as it relates to the purpose defined by the Court, for which it admits it into the body of evidence and shall assess it according to the rules of sound judgment. 31. The State also challenged the statement for informative purposes of Mr. Javier Cabanillas Reyes, pointing out that in said statement "he fails to refer to relevant information related to the enforcement procedure, as well as to the relevant procedural actions adopted during such procedure”. To such end, the Court notes that the challenge made by the State is not related to the relevance and admissibility of the evidence tendered, but to the assessment the Tribunal may make regarding such item of evidence. Therefore, the Court admits this evidence as long as it relates to the purpose defined in the Order of the President (supra para. 7), to assess it together with the body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment, considering the observations made by the State to such end. 32. Furthermore, the State challenged the statement of Mrs. Laura Arias Laureano, indicating that such statement “did not fulfill its end, taking into account the purpose of the statement defined by the Court". The State alleged that "contrary to what the deponent suggests, [...] the State did not fail to comply with the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal [...]". It further stated that "there is no proper causal relationship between [the] facts [the deponent and his relatives suffered] and the alleged non-compliance by the State" and lastly, that the answer of the deponent regarding the remedies filed by her husband to obtain the reimbursement of the pensions, which were not granted, are insufficient since the deponent did not mention in detail the measures adopted. To such end, the Court notes that the challenge made by the State is not related to the relevance and admissibility of the evidence tendered, but to the assessment the Tribunal may make regarding such item of evidence. Therefore, the Court takes into account the observations presented by the State and considers that the statement of Mrs. Dicha Laura Arias Laureano may contribute to the determination, by the Tribunal, of the facts in the instant case, for which it admits it into the body of evidence and shall assess it according to the rules of sound judgment. 33. The State objected to “the presentation, acceptance and scope of the documentary evidence offered in Appendix 3, [of the application of the InterAmerican Commission] regarding the legislation and judgments of the pension system, inasmuch as they are irrelevant and unrelated to the suit of this proceeding”. In such regard, the Tribunal notes that the controversy in the case at hand relates to the alleged non-compliance with certain domestic decisions in which aspects of the pension system applicable in Perú were analyzed. Therefore, the Court takes into account the observations presented by the State and deems that said documents are relevant and may contribute to the determination, by the Tribunal, of the facts in the instant case, for which it admits it into the body of evidence and shall assess it according to the rules of sound judgment, as long as they are related to the subject-matter of the case. 34. The State objected "to the entire [documentary] evidence [tendered by the representatives in the brief of pleadings and motions] inasmuch as it is not related to the claims of the present proceeding". Said offer of evidence include: a)