15 that Mr. Ricardo Rolando Díaz Martínez, General Supervisor of the Secretariat of Security, appointed in charge of the Special Unit for the Investigation of the Deaths of Minors since May 2003, gave his statement “from the point of view of a person interested in proving the effectiveness of measures adopted by the State regarding some substantive elements.” Likewise, it stated that Mr. Romero Cantarero gave a statement referring to “matters that were under his charge [as Consultant or Presidential Advisor]” and that Mrs. Urbina Pineda offered a statement on “the defense of her work as Special Prosecutor of Children”. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the three statements “lack the characteristics of fairness necessary to substantiate the receipt of an opinion of an expert witness.” 43. In this regard, in first instance, the Court observes that, despite calling repeatedly upon Ramón Antonio Romero Cantarero, Ricardo Rolando Díaz Martínez, and Nora Suyapa Urbina Pineda, through the State, for the presentation of information regarding if they were included in any of the motives described in Article 50 of the Rules of Procedure in relation with Article 19(1) of the Statute and if they had any direct participation in this case, it was not presented. In that sense, this Tribunal reprimanded the State who upon proposing said persons as expert witnesses, who through it should have sent the information required, it should have made the corresponding diligences to send the Court said information, so the Tribunal could have it.7 44. In second place, in what refers specifically to the statements offered before a notary public by the expert witnesses Ramón Antonio Romero Cantarero (supra para. 37(3)(b)) and Ricardo Rolando Díaz Martínez (supra para. 37(3)(c)), taking into account the Commission’s observations, this Court admits them within the totality of the body of evidence, pursuant to the principles of competent analysis. 45. In what refers to the statement offered before a notary public by Mrs. Nora Suyapa Urbina Pineda, it was presented in a time-barred manner, on January 16, 2006 (supra para. 23), that is, eleven days after the time period set to do so, reason for which this Tribunal does not accept it within the body of evidence. 46. Regarding the authenticated statement offered by the expert witnesses Leo Valladares Lanza (supra para. 37(1)(a)), offered by the Commission; Reina Auxiliadora Rivera Joya (supra para. 37(2)(a)) and Carlos Tiffer Sotomayor (supra para. 37(2)(b)), offered by the representatives, and the expert opinion given before a notary public (affidavit) by Lolis María Salas Montes (supra para. 37(3)(a)), proposed by the State, this Court admits the expert opinions, and assesses them within the totality of the body of evidence pursuant to competent analysis. It is important to mention that the Tribunal has, on other occasions, admitted sworn statements that were not given before a notary public, when this does not affect legal certainty and the procedural balance between the parties.8 47. On the other hand, through its Decision of November 24, 2005, the Court ordered that the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State 7 Cfr. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 48; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 77; and Case of Gómez Palomino. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 52. 8 Cfr. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 52; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 114; and Case of Baldeón García, supra note 3, para. 66.