22 proposed them.” In this case, the Court finds no grounds for considering that the admission of the expert opinions affects the legal certainty or the procedural balance of the parties owing to the absence of the oath in the terms of Article 51(4) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. In each opinion, the deponents included an oath and their signature certified by notary public attests to the fact that they are the authors of the said statement, and assume the corresponding legal consequences. Consequently, the Court considers that this observation does not represent a defect that makes the expert opinions inadmissible. 60. With regard to the State’s observations on the purpose of the expert opinions of Ana Carcedo Cabañas,56 Rodolfo Kepfer Rodríguez, and José Nájera Ochoa, the Court understands that they do not contest the admissibility of the said opinions, but rather are designed to question their probative value. Regarding the State’s argument that the expert witnesses did not provide their expert opinion in keeping with the purpose established in the Order of the President, the Court will consider the content of these opinions to the extent that they are adjusted to the purpose for which they were required57 (supra para. 11). 61. Based on above, the Court admits the above-mentioned expert opinions, and will assess them together with the rest of the body of evidence, taking into account the State’s observations and in keeping with the rules of sound judicial discretion. E. Admission of the statement of the presumed victim and expert evidence provided at the public hearing 62. Regarding the statement made by Rosa Elvira Franco Sandoval, the State, in its observations, pointed out some inconsistencies in order to question the probative value of the statement when recounting the facts of this case, but did not object to the statement or request that it be found inadmissible.58 The Court finds it pertinent to admit the presumed victim’s statement insofar as it is adapted to the purpose defined by the President in the Order requiring it, and will take the State’s observations into account (supra para. 11). The Court also reiterates its considerations concerning the assessment of this statement since Mrs. Franco Sandoval is a presumed victim (supra para. 57). 63. As regards the expert opinion provided by María Eugenia Solís, the State referred to the content of the statement, as well as to her written opinion to invalidate its probative value, but did not contest its admissibility. In this opinion, Ms. Solís did not provide references for the statistical information, bibliography, case files, prosecution cases, cases, judgments and persons she mentioned, and failed to clarify the number of cases she had consulted. The Court admits and will assess the expert opinion together with the rest of the body of evidence, insofar as it corroborates and complements information revealed by other evidence provided to the Court, taking into account the State’s observations and in keeping with the rules of sound judicial discretion. * 56 The State reiterated that she was not sworn in, and referred to what had been decided previously in this regard; also, that she gave an expert opinion that disregarded the Court’s Order, because she provided this opinion as proposed in the representative’s brief of March 8, 2013. In this regard, the Court reiterates that it will consider the content of the expert opinion to the extent that it is adapted to the purpose established for it. Thus, it will take into account the allegations that the expert witness made about Guatemala, but only to the extent that the indications made about the Central American region were presented in the expert report as data that was comparative or inclusive of the situation in Guatemala. 57 Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 42, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, supra, para. 31. 58 It added that Mrs. Franco Sandoval used an “inappropriate” approach when addressing the State’s representatives that was “unjustified […] and should not […] be accepted just because she considers herself a victim.”