14 40. In addition, the representatives argued that the criteria expressed in Judgment C350/9734 of the Colombian Constitutional Court of July 26, 1997, forwarded by the State, “was controversial and […] had been surpassed by Colombian legislation and case law.” According to the representatives, “the laws of Colombia currently in force establish the ways in which broadcasting concessions are renewed, and although this is not automatic, […] they also establish a procedure enabling concessionaires to obtain the renewal under reasonable and non-discriminatory conditions.” In this regard, the Court underscores that the representatives’ arguments relate to the importance that could be accorded to the judgment forwarded by the State and not to the admissibility of the documentary evidence. Therefore, pursuant to Article 58(b) of its Rules of Procedure, the Court finds it appropriate to admit this document. B.2 Admission of the testimonial and expert evidence 41. The Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements and opinions provided during the public hearing and by affidavit, insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them (supra para. 6) and the purpose of this case. 42. Regarding the statement of witness José Leonardo Suárez, proposed by the State, the representatives stressed that he had “made it clear that he did not possess the technical knowledge to offer his views on the ‘sufficiency’ or the ‘quality’ of the frequencies.” In this regard, the Court emphasizes that, contrary to expert witnesses, witnesses do not provide technical opinions related to their special knowledge or expertise; 35 thus, the objections raised by the representatives are unrelated to the purpose of the statement of this witness. Consequently, his statement is admitted. 43. Also, regarding the statement of Ana María Hernández, the representatives argued that “she [did] not express herself objectively [and] could not be admitted as an expert.”36 In this regard, the Court recalls that, in the order of the President of the Court of April 14, 2014, it was decided that Ms. Hernández would provide her statement for information purposes only and not as an expert witness as proposed by the State, because it was considered that she “might be in a subordinate relationship to the State entity that had a direct interest in the case, and thus the provisions of Article 48(1)(f) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure were applicable and it was not appropriate to summon her as an expert.”37 Therefore, the Court understands that the representatives’ arguments do not contest the admissibility of the statement, but rather question its probative value. The Court will consider the content of this statement to the extent that it is in keeping with the purpose for which it was required (supra para. 6). On this basis, the Court admits the statement for information purposes. C) Assessment of the evidence 44. Based on Articles 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, and on its consistent case law concerning evidence and its assessment, 38 the Court will examine and That judgment considered that a provision eliminating the possibility of “automatic” renewal at the conclusion of a concession that had been granted was in keeping with the Constitution and determined that this could not be understood as an acquired right because there was only an expectation. Constitutional Court of Colombia. Judgment C-350 of 1997 (evidence file, folio 3407). 34 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2012. Series C No. 254, para. 27. 35 In particular, the representatives referred to the phrase: “[m]ost of these private sector communication enterprises were and are connected to Acción Democrática and COPEI, as well as to other commercial political predators who have lived off the economic structure of the Venezuelan State.” 36 Cf. Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela. Order of the acting President of the Court of April 14, 2014, para. 29. 37 38 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42,