Procedure14, this failure to facilitate the production of evidence required by the Court 15 was inappropriate conduct. Therefore, the Court admits the statements of three alleged victims, three witnesses and six expert witnesses rendered by affidavit and submitted by the representatives on February 27, 2012. Furthermore, the Court admits as evidence the testimonies and opinions rendered by one alleged victim, one witness and one expert witness at the public hearing. (supra paras. 11 and 12). 32. With regard to the expert opinion of Michael Reed Hurtado, the State argued that the expert “does not possess sufficient knowledge about the Colombian-Venezuelan border; […] bases his opinion solely on theory […], without any type of field study appropriate to social sciences,” and that the presentation delivered by the expert indicated he had never seen the court record in its entirety, “[…] clearly demonstrating his partiality when preparing his report.” Therefore, the State requested that the report be dismissed and that his conclusions not be taken into consideration,” since “[his] lack of knowledge and inexperience is evident.” 33. The Court notes that the State’s observations refer to the expert’s knowledge of the matter on which he is rendering his opinion, as well as the content and the sources he had when preparing his report. Likewise, it recalls that, unlike witnesses, experts may offer technical or personal opinions provided that these are related to their special knowledge or experience. It further recalls that experts may refer both to specific matters of the case or any other subject relevant to the litigation, so long as they limit themselves to the purpose for which they were summoned and their conclusions are well-founded.16 In this sense, the Court finds that the State’s observations do not challenge the admissibility of the expert testimony, but rather, to question the probative value of the opinion. Also, with regard to the alleged bias and partiality of the expert report, the Court notes that the expert said he had “review[ed] the procedural documents that were attached to the file submitted to the Commission and the Inter-American Court, which are the copies he [has], he has no others [..], this is what he was asked to review […], which was attached to this process.” Thus, it appears that he prepared his opinion based on the information available to him. The Court admits the expert opinion and will consider its content in relation to specific situations of the investigations that he was aware of and were limited to his area of expertise; also, the opinion was consistent with the purpose for which it was requested (supra para. 11). V FACTS A. Context 34. Both the Commission and the representatives referred to the situation in the Colombian-Venezuelan border area; to the movements related to land claims and agricultural reforms in Venezuela; and to the situation of human rights defenders in that 14 Article 26 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 15 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court for Contentious Administrative Matters”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 14, and Case of Uzcátegui et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 30. 16 Cf. 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 Vélez Restrepo and relatives v. Colombia, supra, para. 74. 9