other elements of the body of evidence, and taking into account the observations made by the parties.20 24. With regard to the testimony of the alleged victims, the State submitted observations on specific responses of Eloísa Barrios during her appearance before the Court. In addition, it commented on “the lack of interest in the petition lodged by the Barrios family,” because only nine of the 17 alleged victims initially proposed by the representatives had testified. 25. Pursuant to this Court’s case law, the statements given by the alleged victims cannot be assessed in isolation, but rather must be examined together with all the evidence in the proceedings, since they are useful insofar as they can provide further information on the alleged violations and their consequences.21 The Court notes that the State’s observations refer to certain aspects of the testimony of Eloísa Barrios and to a supposed lack of interest of some members of the Barrios family, but do not contest the admissibility of the statements received. Based on the foregoing, the Court admits the said statements, although their probative value will be assessed taking into account the said observations and the rules of sound judicial discretion.22 26. Lastly, the State commented on certain expert opinions. Regarding the expert opinion of Mrs. Vázquez González, Venezuela disagreed with some of the statements made by the expert witness; asserted that, since she was unaware of “the entire case under investigation, […] the legal analysis contained in [her] opinion is biased and partial,” and indicated that she had reached “contradictory conclusions.” With regard to expert witness Valdez Labadi, the State questioned the content of her opinion and argued that “it does not correspond to the purpose established for [her] expertise.” Regarding expert witness Baraybar, Venezuela contested his opinion, because “it d[id] not analyze the pertinent domestic law or the applicable action protocols established by the national coordination body for Venezuelan forensic science,” and indicated that “without having the documentation that he questioned [in his opinion], he proceeded to make assumptions,” incurring in contradictions. Lastly, the State contested some of the conclusions reached by expert witness Briceño León in his opinion. 27. The Inter-American Court notes that, in general, the observations of the State are based on: (a) its disagreement with the content of the opinions, contradicting them or providing its opinion on them; (b) the scope of the opinions of the expert witnesses in relation to the purpose of the opinion or the elements used to prepare it, and (c) the methodology used to prepare one of the opinions. 28. The Court finds it pertinent to indicate that, in contrast to the witnesses, who must avoid giving personal opinions, the expert witnesses provide technical or personal opinions related to their special expertise or experience. In addition, the expert witnesses can refer both to specific points of the litis, and also to any other relevant point of the litigation, provided they respect the purpose for which they were convened and their conclusions are 20 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al., supra note 12, para. 27. 21 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo, supra note 20, para. 43 and Case of López Mendoza, supra note 16, para. 24. 22 Regarding the supposed lack of interest of the Barrios family, the Court recalls that the representatives indicated that, “owing to the suffering and harassment the family has undergone, as well as the lack of protection […] that has been evident in recent months, several next of kin proposed in [their] brief are unable to testify or have decided to desist from participating in this case.” Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 27, 2011, considering paragraph 33. 14