26 92. The State questioned the expert opinion of Mrs. Lira Kornfeld on the basis of partiality, absence of methodology, and lack of familiarity with the case, affirming that the expert witness had based her opinion on psychological reports prepared by others and on testimony presented in nine similar cases, and also that the expert witness had made certain accusations against the State with regard to the administration of justice. The Court does not find that referring to the testimony of other victims or to reports of other professionals signifies an absence of methodology, especially if said testimony and reports related to the problems examined in this case. Moreover, the Court recalls that, unlike witnesses, expert witnesses may provide technical or personal opinions to the extent that such opinions are related to their expertise or experience. In addition, expert witnesses may refer to specific elements of the litis and also to any factor that is relevant to the litigation, provided they confine themselves to the purpose for which they were convened.51 93. In relation to the expert opinion of Mr. de la Peña Martínez, the State maintained that “although the observations of the expert witness could be of value, the Tribunal cannot taken them into consideration because the methodology used by the deponent reveals that he never entered into direct contact with the victims or evaluated the measures taken by the State to repair the psychological harm, which, in any case, demonstrates the subjectivity of his statements.” The Court agrees with the State that a direct interview with the alleged victims would have provided the expert with more information to make his expert appraisal. However, the absence of a direct interview is not sufficient reason for rejecting the expertise, but rather a factor that has an impact on its probative value. Accordingly, the Court admits and will assess it together with the rest of the evidence in the case file. 94. Regarding the testimony of Mr. Coronado Franco, the State criticized that the expert opinion was based on the Commission’s application, the representatives’ brief and criminal cases Nos. 426/01, 48/01 and 74/04, and did not take into account the information provided by the State, or explain the relationship of these criminal actions with the instant case. The Court finds that the fact that the expert witness failed to take into account the information provided by State is not a reason to reject the expert appraisal. In this situation, the Tribunal must consider the expert witness’s opinion, compare it with the arguments and evidence provided by the State, and extract the conclusions yielded by logic and sound judicial discretion, and it will do so when examining the merits of the case. 95. With regard to the testimony of Mrs. Azaola Garrido, the State indicated that, the curriculum vitae of the expert witness “reveals her unfamiliarity and inexperience with regard to the discipline of psychoanalysis, post-traumatic stress syndrome, and assessment of harm to the physical and mental health of the individual.” The State did not ask the Court to reject this opinion; consequently, the Court will assess it together with the rest of the evidence in the case file, taking into account the State’s observations and the expert’s curriculum vitae. 96. Regarding the expert opinion of Mrs. Huaita Alegre, the State indicated that “it is not based on specialized knowledge […] but rather on the [C]ommission’s decisions”; it does not reveal the supposed discriminatory conduct of the authorities in the administration of justice after 2003, and the expert witness asked that the Court “declare the responsibility of the State for not having acted with due diligence, while it was not the purpose of her appraisal to judge the State’s actions.” If necessary, the 51 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra note 6, seventy-fifth considering paragraph.