Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, and incorporates it into the body of evidence to be assessed according to the rules of sound judicial discretion. 26. Following the public hearing, the Commission and the State forwarded written versions of the expert opinions provided by the expert witnesses summoned to testify in the instant case, which were distributed to the other parties. The Court admits these documents insofar as they refer to the purpose opportunely defined by the President of the Court for the respective expert opinions (supra para. 18), because it finds them useful for this case and they were not contested and their authenticity and veracity were not questioned. B.2. Admission of the testimonial and expert evidence 27. With regard to the testimony of the witnesses and the opinions given in the public hearing and by sworn statements, the Court finds them pertinent only insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the Order requiring them (supra paras. 7, 17 and 18). They will be assessed in the corresponding chapter, together with the other elements of the body of evidence and taking into account the observations made by the parties.14 28. The State, in its observations on the affidavits forwarded by the representatives, alleged that they “do not comply with the Court’s requirements, because they are not freely made statements with subsequent questions, but rather direct responses to questions asked by [the representatives].” In this regard, the Court observes that, in a communication of January 14, 2011, the State consulted the Court about the form and method for preparing the affidavits requested by the President of the Court in the order of January 31, 2011 (supra para. 7). In this regard, in a note of the Court’s Secretariat of January 14, 2011, the State was advised that the affidavits “should consist of the written transcript of the statement made freely by the deponent before a notary public on the purpose of the testimony […] defined by the President of the Court in the Order with the respective request” for an affidavit, together with the “answers to the questions formulated by the opposing party to the party that has offered [the witnesses],” in accordance with 50 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 29. Regarding the State’s observations concerning the structure of the affidavits presented by the representatives, the Court considers that there are no treaty-based or regulatory restrictions to their content according to Article 50 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, as long as they refer only to the purpose defined by the Court or its President and include the answers to the questions raised by the opposing party. Although the State was advised that the affidavits consisted of a statement made freely by the deponent, there is nothing that prevents this statement being made in the form of questions and answers with the party who proposes the deponent. In addition, the Court observes that, when forwarding the questions for the witnesses proposed by the State, the representatives also submitted questions addressed to the witnesses they themselves had proposed. With regard to such questions, the representatives were advised that they could formulate the questions addressed to their witnesses directly or that the questions could be included by the said witnesses in their statements, without the need for the Court’s intervention. The State was informed of this. Therefore, the Court does not find the State’s observation concerning the structure of the affidavits presented by the representatives admissible, and decides to admit them, while indicating that their probative value will be considered in the pertinent section of this judgment, in the context of the body of evidence presented and according to the rules of sound judicial discretion. 14 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 12, para. 38, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela, supra note 12, para. 24. 10