the answer was given in the plural and it was not clear whether the expert witness was answering the question directly. They therefore asked the Court to take these comments into account when assessing this evidence. 41. First, the Court notes that expert witness Cubas Villanueva did not explicitly answer the only question posed by the representatives, and reiterates the duty of the party that offers a statement to take the necessary steps to forward the questions to the deponents and to ensure that they provide the respective answers.40 Nevertheless, the Court considers that the failure to answer the questions of the other party does not affect the admissibility of a statement and is an aspect that, according to the scope of a deponent’s silence, may have an impact on the probative value of the statement or expert opinion, an aspect that will be assessed when examining the merits of the case. 41 Second, the Court notes that the comments made by the representatives on the expert opinions of Messrs. Ponce Malaver and Naldos Blanco relate to their content and probative value, but not to their admissibility. 42. Consequently, the Court finds it pertinent to admit the expert opinions of Víctor Manuel Cubas Villanueva, Moisés Valdemar Ponce Malaver and Luis Alberto Naldos Blanco offered by Peru, insofar as they are in keeping with their purpose, bearing in mind the relevant comments of the representatives when assessing their probative value. 43. The State made several comments on the statement by Víctor Álvarez. First, it indicated that the fact that Mr. Álvarez had been summoned to make his statement at the public hearing – in the order amending the order calling the public hearing – infringed the principle of the “equality of arms” and the Peruvian State’s right of defense. It pointed out that, as of July 30, 2019, the representatives, and consequently the witness, were aware of the questions that the Peruvian State wished to ask him and, therefore, knew part of the Peruvian State’s strategy with 28 days’ advance notice. 44. Regarding the State’s comment, the Court recalls that, at the proper procedural moment, it was advised that, it could pose other questions to the witness at the public hearing. Consequently, the Court does not find that the Peruvian State’s defense was affected. Regarding the other comments made by the State, the Court will take them into account when assessing their probative value. VI FACTS 45. This case refers to the detention and alleged torture of Azul Rojas Marín. Based on the arguments submitted by the parties and the Commission, the Court will describe the main facts of the case in the following order: (a) the situation of the LGBTI population in Peru; (b) the detention and alleged torture of Azul Rojas Marín; (c) the investigation of the facts; (d) the complaint filed against the Ascope Prosecution Service; (e) the disciplinary administrative proceeding instituted against the members of the Peruvian National Police, and (f) the second investigation of the facts. A. Situation of the LGBTI population in Peru Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 3, 1998. Series C No. 40, para. 30, and Case of Galindo Cárdenas et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 89. 40 Cf. Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257, para. 56, and Case of Galindo Cárdenas et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 89. 41 13