79 Moreno, Mayela León Rodríguez, Richard Alexis López Valle and Zullivan René Peña Hernández from exercising their professions. B.ii Mental and moral integrity of the alleged victims 280. The representatives requested the Court, based on the statements rendered by the alleged victims and the expert opinion of the clinical psychologist, Magdalena López de Ibáñez, to declare that the State violated the right to humane treatment, "in its psychic dimension", to the detriment of the alleged victims they represent, as a consequence of the above mentioned declarations made by high-ranking officials, as well as of "the practice and recurring commission, during […] the years 2001 to 2005, of a [set of] facts of physical violence, threats to life and to humane treatment”, which would have caused a series of physical and mental disturbances to all the equipment of Globovisión and, specially, to the alleged victims. 281. The Commission did not submit allegations in this regard. 282. The State pointed out that the alleged violation of the mental integrity was not included in the application and that the alleged victims intend to create evidence in their favor, inasmuch as the declarations made by the officials cannot be considered evidence in order to prove such violation. It also expressed, regarding the expert opinion of Mrs. López de Ibáñez, that “it is unspecified, makes general conclusions and when it refers to each one of the people evaluated, it does not make a diagnosis". Likewise, the State considered that it was a defective expert’s opinion, given the fact that she did not evaluate the alleged victims from the medical’s point of view, she did not ordered additional studies and she used a limited methodology. The State intends, in this way, to disqualify the expert opinion’s conclusion regarding the fact that the syntomatology presented by the victims who were examined, was directly associated with situations of physical attack and harassment; therefore, it requested the Court to disregard the expert’s opinion in the assessment of the facts of the case at hand. 283. The Court notes that the representatives sustained its argument, inter alia, in the statements of the alleged victims, who made reference to the abridgement of their integrity as the result of several situations in which they were involved, without specifying some incident in particular. In particular, they mentioned that immediately after the attacks during the exercise of their profession, they suffered from "states of anguish, fear and depression", "stress", heart diseases, "panic attacks", “insomnia”, “chronical gastritis”, “claustrophobia” and “digestive problems”, among other ailments. Nevertheless, this Tribunal has long held that the statements made by the alleged victims and other people with a direct interest in the case are useful as long as they provide more information on the alleged violations and their consequences, though they cannot be assessed in isolation (supra para. 103). 284. In addition to such statements, the only item of evidence furnished regarding this issue is the already mentioned expert’s opinion of Mrs. Magdalena López de Ibáñez, expert witness proposed by the representatives. This expert’s opinion consists in the psychological evaluation of 38 alleged victims, by means of the conduction of individual interviews, tests and questionnaires with each one of them276. 276 Cf. affidavit rendered by Magdalena López de Ibañez on April 8, 2008 (records of evidence, volume XXXIII, pages 8551-8567).