B.2) Admission of the statements of the presumed victims, and the testimonial and expert evidence 48. Regarding the testimony of the presumed victims and the witnesses, and the expert opinions provided during the public hearing and by affidavit, the Court finds them pertinent only insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the Order in which he required them (supra para. 10). They will be assessed in the corresponding chapter, together with the other elements of the body of evidence and taking into account the observations made by the parties.45 49. Pursuant to the Court’s case law, the testimony of the presumed victims cannot be assessed in isolation, but rather together with all the evidence in the proceedings, because they are useful to the extent that they can provide additional information on the alleged violations and their consequences.46 Consequently, the Court admits the said testimony (supra para. 36), and it will be assessed based on the criteria indicated. 50. Lastly, the Court takes note that the State “contest[ed]” the admissibility of certain answers and annexes presented by expert witness Fredy Peccerelli in his opinion, concerning the financing of the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Foundation, of which he is the Director, and the relationship between the Foundation and the State. Guatemala considered that those parts of Mr. Peccerelli’s opinion “do not deal with the purpose for which he was called to testify” and, therefore, asked to the Court “to assess [this opinion] solely” in relation to its purpose. In this regard, the Court notes that, indeed, the questions indicated by the State (posed by the representatives to the expert), and the answers to them, are outside the purpose defined by the President in his Order. Consequently, the Court admits this expert opinion insofar as it is in keeping with the purpose defined by the President. VII FACTS 51. Given the importance of establishing the facts that gave rise to State responsibility in this case, in order to preserve the historical memory and to avoid the repetition of similar events, and as a form of reparation to the victims, in this chapter the Court will establish the facts of this case, based on the facts submitted to the consideration of the Court by the Commission and the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State, taking into consideration the pleadings and motions brief of the representatives and the body of evidence. 52. The Court recalls that, according to its case law, the principle of non-retroactivity and the optional clause on recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction do not signify that an act that occurred before the said recognition must be excluded from any consideration when it may be relevant in order to determine the facts and the human rights violations that are within its temporal competence. The Court also recalls that, in accordance with Article 41(3) of the Rules of Procedure, it may consider acknowledged those facts that have not been expressly denied and the allegations that have not been expressly contested. Furthermore, the Court recalls that, in order to decide the different cases submitted to its considered, it has been 45 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 40. 46 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits, supra, para. 43, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 40. - 20 -