25 documents requested as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case and those that refer to supervening facts. 86. Regarding the testimony and the expert opinions, the Court considers them pertinent to the extent that they correspond to the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them (supra para. 10), which will be assessed in the corresponding chapter. With regard to the statements of the victims, since they have an interest in this case, their testimony must be assessed together with all the evidence in the proceedings, rather than alone.49 87. The State contested the expert opinions of Mr. Castresana and Mr. Snow, and also the testimony of Mr. Bosio, Mr. Hinojos and Mrs. Delgadillo Pérez, because they referred to individuals who are not included in this litis. In this regard, the Court reiterates that, according to the order of January 19, 2009 (supra para. 9), the situation of individuals not included in this case may be used: [A]s relevant evidence when assessing the alleged context of violence against women, the supposed flaws in the investigations conducted in the domestic sphere and other aspects denounced to the detriment of the three alleged victims identified in the application.50 88. The State contested the testimony of the expert witness Castresana Fernández, alleging that he had not taken part in the measures taken by the State since 2003. In this regard, when examining the merits of the case, the Court will asses whether the evidence supports the opinion of the expert witness. 89. The State contested the opinion of expert witness Pineda Jaimes, affirming that it was biased and lacked expertise in the area in which he gave his opinion. It also indicated that the information he provided had not been organized methodologically in order to provide impartial and specialized elements, and that his conclusions concerning the measures and parameters to make reparation for damage, and the rights of human rights defenders exceeded the purpose of his expert opinion. In this regard, the Court considers that the State has not presented grounds for the alleged partiality that would indicate the presence of one of the causes of impediment provided for in Article 19 of the Statute. Regarding the conclusions of the expert witness that might exceed the purpose of his opinion, the Court finds them useful for this case, and therefore admits them under Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 90. The State indicated that, in his expert opinion, Mr. Snow made general observations that should not be taken into account. In this regard, the Court will examine the supposed general observations of the expert witness when analyzing the merits of the case and will verify that they are supported by the other evidence. 91. Regarding expert witness Copelon, the State indicated that her written opinion (supra para. 84.d) went beyond what the President had expressly permitted during the public hearing, and that the expert had alluded to situations that had presumably occurred in Ciudad Juárez “without having the expertise to do so”; consequently, it asked the Court to reject certain sections of the expert opinion. In this regard, the Court will not take into account the statements made by the expert witness that exceed the purpose defined by the President at the public hearing. Regarding her “expertise,” the Court will assess whether the assertions made by the expert bear a relationship to the rest of the evidence when examining the merits of the case. 49 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 54, and Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra note 47, para. 45. 50 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra note 4, forty-sixth considering paragraph.