20 62. In regards to the expert opinion of Mrs. Bonfil Sánchez, the State affirmed that the affirmations lack substance regarding “whether social, bureaucratic, and normative practices that should be revised in regards to whether they constitute discriminatory action’s by commission or omission, against the dignity, identity, integrity, and security of indigenous women of the country,” as well as “various cases […] before the InterAmerican Court […], and before national tribunal[s].” It requested, as such, that these affirmations be dismissed and it emphasized that it does not correspond to an expert witness to testify regarding the measures of reparation. 63. Regarding the expert report of Mr. Arana Cedeño, the State considered that it is “based on investigations and experiences in the state of Chiapas,” and that, for such reason, it would be “inappropriate to transfer the existent situation in [Chiapas] to that which exists in the state of Guerrero.” Moreover, the State requested the Court to “dismiss the evidence due to the inconsistency between the expert report presented and the purpose […] required by […] this Court.” 64. The expert report of Mr. Ortiz Elizondo was objected by the State in regards to the section of reparation and satisfaction measures, given that the Court “is the only instance able to make a pronouncement on reparations and the nature of these measures, not the experts.” 65. In regards to the expert opinion of Mrs. Correa Gonzalez, apart from that previously mentioned, (supra para. 60), the State opposed the reference to reparation measures and to the specific citation on those guilty of the crime of rape, “which has not yet been proven.” 66. Regarding the expert opinion of Mr. Stavenhagen, the State requested that whenever the testimony consists solely of the experts personal opinion, the Court assess it in those terms. 67. Lastly, the State requested the Court to abstain from considering the expert testimony of Messers. Carbonell Sánchez and Andreu Guzmán, because the approach developed in the statements have been assessed by the Court in relation to the case of Radilla Pacheco. 68. The Court considers it appropriate to indicate that, contrary to the witnesses, who should avoid giving personal opinions, the expert witnesses provide technical or personal opinions related to their specialized knowledge or experience. In addition, expert witnesses may refer both to specific points of the litis [litigation] and to any other relevant point of the litigation, provided they circumscribe their comments to the purpose for which they were summoned47 and that their conclusions are sufficiently founded. First, the Court notes that the expert opinions of Mr. Carbonell Sánchez, Perlin, Andreu Guzmán, Correa González, Ortiz Elizondo, Bonfil Sánchez, Arroyo Vargas and Arana Cedeño refer to the purpose for which they were ordered (supra para. 28, 29, and 30). Furthermore, specifically with regard to the expert opinion of Messers. Andreu Guzmán and Carbonell Sánchez, the Court observes that Mexico’s observations refer to the merits of the case, so that the pertinent aspects will be considered, in the corresponding section of the Judgment. On the other hand, in regard to the expert opinion of Mrs. Perlin, Mexico objected both to her qualifications as an expert and also to the content of her opinion. Regarding the former, from the evidence attached, the Court observes that said expert witness has broad international experience on issues of access to and administration of justice and has headed a project to make a specific diagnosis project in Mexico of the issue that is the purpose of her opinion as an official of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Mexico; a project 47 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 42; and Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 36, para. 97, and Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 57.