53 witness Fernando Vicente Canillas Vera to the effect that the two inmates who died in the cellblock were, “[a]ccording to their friends’ testimony, [...] the ones who jammed the lock and burned the mattresses.” The Commission’s contention was that the witness’ statement “is unsupported and refers to facts that the witness himself obviously was not present for; instead, his allegations supposedly come from unnamed third parties.” The Court will take the Commission’s comments into account and is admitting into evidence the expert opinion of Fernando Vicente Canillas Vera to the extent that it fits the purpose of the examination and will assess it in the body of evidence as a whole, applying the rules governing reasoned judgment arrived at freely and on the basis of admissible evidence.44 88. The Commission also asserted that one of the questions asked of Estanislao Balbuena Jara was “contrary to the provisions of Article 42(3) of the Rules of Court, which states that “Leading questions shall not be permitted.” Here, the Court will admit the opinion of Estanislao Balbuena Jara to the extent that it fits the purpose of the examination. It will take the Commission’s objections into account and assess the testimony in the body of evidence as a whole, applying the rules governing reasoned judgment arrived at freely and on the basis of admissible evidence.45 89. The Commission also objected to the statement of Mrs. Teresa de Jesús Almirón Fernández, as her answers “are premised on the assumption that all the Center’s former inmates […] were criminals, which is not the case.” The Court will admit the opinion of Teresa de Jesús Almirón Fernández into evidence to the extent that it fits the purpose of the examination. The Court will take the Commission’s objections into account and assess the testimony in the body of evidence as a whole, applying the rules governing reasoned judgment arrived at freely and on the basis of admissible evidence.46 90. The Court believes that the compact disc and documents presented by the State on May 4, 2004, on the occasion of its oral arguments at the public hearing on preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs (supra paragraphs 56 and 74) will be useful in resolving the instant case, as will the documentation presented by witness Teofista Domínguez during the testimony she gave at the public hearing held on May 3, 2004 (supra paragraphs 56 and 74), especially inasmuch as they were neither contested nor objected to, and their authenticity or veracity was never called into question. It will therefore add this compact disc and documents to the body of evidence, in application of Article 45(1) of the Rules of Court.47 91. Law No. 2169 of June 27, 2003, which concerns the age of majority in Paraguay, is considered a useful document for the adjudication of the instant case and will therefore be added to the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Court.48 44 Supra note 42. 45 Supra note 42. 46 Supra note 42. 47 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 26, para. 74; Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 29, para. 70; and Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 40, para. 131. 48 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 26, para. 74; Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 29, para. 70; and Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 40, para. 131.