51. In this case, as in others, the Court admits those documents presented at the appropriate time by the parties and the Commission that were not contested or challenged, and the authenticity of which was not questioned. 52. The State contested the admissibility of the evidence requested by the Court, indicating that this referred to facts that did not fall within the factual framework of the case. The State also contested the admissibility of all the documentary evidence provided by the representatives. First, it argued that the videos provided by the representatives with their motions and pleadings brief of two thematic hearings held by the Commission on the situation of agents of justice in Chile “do not mention the specific facts that gave rise to this case, but rather a generic situation of agents of justice in Chile.” On the same basis, it contested the admissibility of the report of the National Association of Judges, presented in the last thematic hearing on the situation of agents of justice in Chile. 53. The Court considers that the State’s observations refer to the probative value of the documentary evidence obtained ex officio as well as that provided by the representatives with their motions and pleadings brief, but do not affect their admissibility. Consequently, the Court finds it desirable to admit the documentary evidence requested by the President and provided by the State with its answering brief in the terms of Article 58 of its Rules of Procedure, and also that provided by the representatives with their motions and pleadings brief. The Court will take the State’s observations into consideration, as pertinent, when assessing the evidence. B. Admissibility of the testimonial and expert evidence 54. The Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements made during the public hearing 23 and by affidavit,24 insofar as they in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them and the purpose of this case. 55. The State asked the Court not to admit the statement offered by the representatives of witness Álvaro Flores Monarde, former President of the National Association of Judges of Chile, because the purpose of his statement exceeded the factual framework of the case. The Court considers that the State’s observations refer to the content and eventual probative assessment of the statement, but do not question its admissibility. Consequently, the Court admits the statement of Álvaro Flores Monarde insofar as it is in keeping with the purpose outlined in the order of December 20, 2019. The Court will take the observations of the parties into consideration, as pertinent, when assessing the evidence. 56. In their final written arguments, the representatives indicated that the expert opinion of Álvaro Paúl Díaz, offered by the State, exceeded the purpose outlined in the order of the President because it referred to the specific case. Consequently, they asked the Court not to take those views of the expert into consideration. The Court notes that, indeed, the views expressed by the expert witness in relation to the specific case go beyond the purpose duly defined by the President in the order.25 Therefore, the Court admits the said expert opinion only to the extent that it is in keeping with the purpose duly defined by the President. During the public hearing, the Court received the statement of the presumed victim, Daniel David Urrutia Laubreaux. 23 The Court received an affidavit with the expert opinion of Hernán Victor Gullco. Cf. Affidavit with expert opinion of Hernán Víctor Gullco dated January 20, 2020 (evidence file, folios 3751 to 3608). 24 Expert witness Álvaro Paúl Díaz was called on by the President of the Court to present his opinion by affidavit; this referred to “the rules of procedure and the case law of the Inter-American Court in relation to the determination of the factual framework of a contentious case.” Cf. Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile. Call to a hearing. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 20, 2019, second operative paragraph. 25 13