17 3. Assessment of the statements of the alleged victims and of the testimonial and expert evidence 56. Regarding the testimonies given before a public notary by the alleged victims, Eliseo and Estermerio, the witnesses Gabriel Augusto Guerra, Julian Zet, and Pablo Werner Ramirez, and the testimony given by the alleged victims Pedro and Encarnacion and the expert witnesses Rosalina Tuyuc and Edgar Armando Gutierrez Giron at the public hearing, the Court admits them and finds them pertinent only in regards to the purpose which was defined in the Order requesting they be submitted (supra para. 7) together with the other elements of the body of evidence. In accordance with the jurisprudence of this Tribunal, the testimony given by the alleged victims cannot be evaluated in an isolated manner but must be evaluated with the evidence of the proceedings,38 because it is useful in the sense that they may provide better information about the alleged violations and their consequences. 57. Regarding the expert witness Monica Pinto, the State expressed that “the expert witness referred […] to the possible actions and guarantees that could be requested of the State so as to deal with the issue of reparations [, nevertheless] the testimony must have been limited to the points […] regarding the expert opinion.” The Tribunal considers it pertinent to point out that the experts can refer both to the specific points of the litis as well as any other point relative to the controversy, as long as they limit themselves to the object for which they were summoned39 and their conclusions must be sufficiently wellfounded. Following this criteria, the Court finds it pertinent to admit this expert opinion in a strict sense to the purposes defined by the Presidency in the Order that established the request for said testimony (supra para. 7) and taking into account the observations of the State in this regard, which the Tribunal values together with the body of evidence and in accordance to the rules of competent analyses. 58. Regarding the expert testimony of Maria Eugenia de Sierra, the State expressed that “the expert witness […] based her expertise in various studies[, nevertheless] in no[ne] [of such] document[s] was data revealed that demonstrated the background of antecedents or claims carried out before the National Police regarding the forced disappearance of Mr. Chitay Nech.” The Court notes that what was expressed by the State does not regard the purpose of the expert testimony as defined by the Presidency (supra para. 7), because the object of the expert opinion was not to prove the existence of claims in relation to the forced disappearance of Mr. Chitay Nech. On the contrary, the Tribunal observes that what was expressed by the expert fits the purpose of the expert testimony regarding the pattern of forced disappearances in Guatemala and the context of the facts, and as such it considers it pertinent and values it in accordance with the body of evidence of the present case and the rules of competent analysis. 59. Regarding the testimony of Luis Alfonso Cabrera Hidalgo, the State expressed that “it refers more to the political life of the witness [rather than to] the objective of the testimony.” The Tribunal observes that effectively, the witness refers to his political life, 38 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.)V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs, supra note 27, para. 70; Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 93, and Case Of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 63. 39 Cf. Case González et al. (“Cotton Fields”) V. México. Convocation to Public Hearing. Order of the President of the Court of 18 of March of 2009, Considering Clause 75; Case of Reverón Trujillo V. Venezuela. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 30 of June of 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 42, and Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para 97.