11 Ortega, since her quality of dismissed provisional judge is also not considered reason enough to dismiss her statement. The statements of both witnesses, however, are by themselves insufficient to consider the facts they state as proven, instead they must be compared with the rest of the evidence in the case file and pursuant with the rules of competent analysis. Likewise, the Court will assess in the merits of the matter the statement of the witness Irazu Silva and will prove with the rest of the body of evidence if his assertions lack or not grounds. 38. In what refers to the personal opinions stated by the mentioned witnesses, the Court reiterates that when a person is called to declare as a witness, that person may refer to the facts and circumstances he is aware of with regard to the object of their statement, avoiding to offer their personal opinions.23 Therefore, the Court will ignore any opinion merely personal expressed by the witnesses in their affidavits. 39. Regarding the statement of the expert Zeitune, the State pointed out that he has the condition of Legal Advisor for Latin America of the International Jurists Commission and that “one of the […] judges of [the] Inter-American Court acts as Commissioner of the International Jurists Commission.” 40. In this sense, the Tribunal points out that none of its judges is a member of the International Jurists Commission. Therefore, the State’s observation is not admissible. 41. Venezuela also stated that the conclusions of the experts Zeitune and Canova González have no legal or objective grounds, and that the expert Arteaga Sánchez made unfounded conjectures. 42. Unlike witnesses, who shall avoid offering personal opinions, experts may offer technical or personal opinions as long as they refer to their special knowledge or experience. Additionally, the experts may refer both to specific matters of the action or any other relevant subject of the litigation, as long as they are limited to the object for which they were convened. 24 The experts’ conclusions shall be well founded. 43. Now, the State’s objection shall be analyzed when the Tribunal goes on to study the merits of the matter. In the assumption that the expert’s conclusions are unfounded, that means of evidence will not be taken into account; if they are well founded, it will. In other words, it is a matter of evidentiary weight and not of admissibility of the evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal admits the statements of the mentioned experts and it will assess them along with the body of evidence and pursuant with the rules of competent analysis. 44. Regarding the statement of the alleged victim, the State indicated that it did not adjust to the truth in reference to two events: a) the alleged lack of notification to Mrs. Reverón Trujillo of the precautionary measures issued by the Inter-American Commission in favor of a defendant in a case in which Mrs. Reverón Trujillo was acting as judge, and b) the alleged infringement of the alleged victim’s right to retirement. 45. The Court indicates that point a) is not an object of the present case, and therefore it will not consider it. Regarding point b), the Tribunal will analyze Mrs. 23 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra note 3, eighteenth considering clause, and Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Order of the President of the Court of March 18, 2009, fortyseventh considering clause. 24 clause. Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra note 23, seventy-fifth considering