28 94. The State indicated that the testimonies offered by Mrs. Angelina Reyes Hernández; Tomasa Ríos García, and Jovita Ayala Fierro, witnesses offered by the representatives, do not adjust to the object defined by the President of the Tribunal through Order of May 29, 2009 (supra para. 8). In this sense, the Court warns that those statements refer, among others, to different facts that are not part of the factual grounds of the present case, such as situations regarding the alleged disappearance of their next of kin. In that sense, the Tribunal decides to consider them only in what they adjust to the object for which the President requested them. 95. In reference to the statement offered by Mr. Santiago Corcuera Cabezut, the State expressed “[i]ts surprise with [his] comment […] in the sense [that] he received help from another person for the offering of ‘his’ expert opinion, as appears in a footnote in his brief.” Likewise, the State indicated that said statement does not adjust “[t]o the object for which it was requested […]” since in some of its paragraphs it refers to the case of Mr. RadillaPacheco. 96. In this sense, the Court considers that the mentioned statement (supra para. 95) was only signed and provided by Mr. Corcuerta before a notary public, with which its “personal” presentation is satisfied. In that sense, the Tribunal decides to grant it evidentiary value in all that in which it, in effect, adjusts to the object delimited by the President of the Court (supra para. 68). 97. Regarding the statement of Mr. Federico Andreu, the State referred to a series of objections related to the study of the merits of the present case. The Tribunal considers it appropriate to point out that, unlike witnesses, who shall avoid offering personal opinions, experts may offer technical or personal opinions as long as they refer to their special area of expertise or experience. Additionally, the experts can refer both to specific matters of the litis as well as to any other relevant aspects of the litigation, as long as they limit themselves to the object for which they were summoned.65 The expert’s conclusions must be well grounded. In that sense, the Court has already established that even when the experts’ statements include elements that support the arguments of one of the parties, this per se does not disqualify the expert.66 Now, the State’s objections shall be considered when the Tribunal analyzes the merits of the matter. The Tribunal will assess Mr. Federico Andreu’s statement along with the body of evidence and pursuant with the rules of competent analysis. 98. With regard to the statement offered by Mr. José Sotelo, in its final written arguments the State mentioned that “[i]t refers to facts beyond the evidence (points 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of [his] statement) […]”, which “[m]akes it susceptible of being dismissed.” Likewise, the State objected his statement “[s]ince he cannot verify the facts it refers to Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 74, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 43, para. 37. 65 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Summons to the Public Hearing. Order of the President of the Court of September 24, 2008, Considering clause number eighteen; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Summons to Public Hearing. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 18, 2009, Considering clause number seventy-five. 66 Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Summons to the Public Hearing. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 20, 2006, considering clause number twenty-one; Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court, supra note 65, considering clause number thirty-four; Case of Radilla-Pacheco v. Mexico, Order of the President of the Inter-American Court, supra note 4, considering clause number forty-six.