12 30. In a communication of January 30, 2017, the State withdrew presentation of the expert opinion of Omar Sar Suárez. The representatives contested the withdrawal on February 7, 2017, during the public hearing and in a communication of February 13, 2017. In this regard, the presumed victim’s representatives objected to the reasons given for the withdrawal and advised that the opinion had already been given. They therefore requested the expert opinion and the answers to their questions and sent photographs showing that Omar Sar Suárez had apparently prepared his affidavit. 31. Consequently, in a Secretariat note of February 17, 2017, the full Court determined that, pursuant to Article 46(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the proper procedural moment for the Commission and the parties to confirm or withdraw the offer of the statements made in their respective briefs is in the final list requested by the Court; accordingly, once an expert opinion has been required in an order of the President and, especially, when it has been prepared, it is extremely relevant that it be incorporated into the proceedings. On this basis, pursuant to Articles 31, 46(1), 54 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as operative paragraphs 4, 5, 8 and 11 of the order of the President of November 21, 2016, the State was required to forward the expert opinion of Omar Sar Suárez to the Court by February 24, 2017. 32. On February 24, 2017, the State presented the expert opinion of Omar Sar and its report No. 032-2017-JUS/CDJE-PPES with observations on the Court’s requirement that this expert opinion be presented. In these observations, the State expressed its discrepancy with the fact that the Court had not provided it with the procedural opportunity to comment on the withdrawal of the expert opinion. In addition, it asked the Court not to take into account paragraphs 64 to 67, 82, 83 and 96, and the answer to the representatives question 7, because the State considered that these referred directly to the specific case. Despite this, in its final written arguments, the State used the opinion of Omar Sar Suárez with regard to various aspects such as limits to freedom of expression and “serious verbal misconduct.” 33. Based on the State’s observations in its brief of February 24, 2017, the Court finds that the requirement and admission of the expert opinion of Omar Sar Suárez were decided in both the order calling for the hearing of November 21, 2016, and the decision of the full Court, in a Secretariat note of February 17, 2017 (supra, para. 31). Regarding the content of the opinion, the Court has indicated that expert witnesses may refer to specific points of the litis and to any other point that is relevant to the litigation, provided they respect the purpose for which they were required.24 The Court determines that the statements made in the above-mentioned paragraphs referred to the scope, content and legitimate restrictions of the right to freedom of expression in the labor context focused on the representatives of a labor union and of the Electoral Committee of the Industrial Community. Based on the order calling the hearing, the Court admits the said expert opinion to the extent that it is in keeping with the purpose required, and will assess it together with the body of evidence and pursuant to the rules of sound judicial criteria. C. Assessment of the evidence 34. Based on its consistent case law regarding evidence and its assessment, the Court will examine and assess the documentary evidence forwarded by the parties and the Commission, together with the statements, testimony and expert opinions, and also the helpful evidence that has been requested and incorporated by this Court, in order to establish the facts of the case and rule on the merits. To this end, it will abide by the principles of sound judicial criteria, within the Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Call to a public hearing. Order of the President of the Court of September 24, 2008, considerandum 18, and Case of Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 27, 2012. Series C No. 256, para. 33. 24