18 (b) José Antonio Sossa, witness proposed by the State of Panama, is a former Prosecutor General (Procurador General) and testified on the actions of the Attorney General’s Office in the criminal case relating to the alleged disappearance and death of Heliodoro Portugal over the period 1994-2004, and (c) Ana Matilde Gómez Ruiloba, witness proposed by the representatives and by the State, is the current Prosecutor General and testified on the investigations carried out by the Legal Department of the Panama Truth Commission in relation to the cases of forced disappearance and execution; the creation of the Special Preliminary Investigation Unit to investigate cases of forced disappearance and the current status of the investigations into the different cases of forced disappearance, including the case of Heliodoro Portugal; the judicial and legal obstacles for the investigation and punishment of forced disappearances in Panama and the legal reforms and initiatives concerning the definition of this act as an offense; the actions of the Attorney General’s Office in the criminal case relating to the disappearance and death of Heliodoro Portugal, and the response that the State has provided to the needs of Graciela De León Rodríguez, Patria Portugal and Franklin Portugal. B) ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE 67. In this case as in others,29 the Court accepts the probative value of those documents and statements forwarded by the parties at the appropriate procedural moment, in the terms of Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, that were not contested or opposed and the authenticity of which was not questioned. 68. Regarding the testimonies and opinions given by the witnesses and the expert witnesses at the public hearing and by sworn statements (affidavits), the Court considers them pertinent provided they correspond to the purpose defined by the Court or the President in the Order requiring them (supra para. 65), taking into account the observations submitted by the parties. The Court considers that the testimony given by the alleged victims must be assessed together with all the evidence in the proceedings and not in isolation, because they have a direct interest in the case.30 69. The Commission and the representatives contested the sworn written statement of María Victoria González, alleging that her testimony did not refer to the purpose indicated by the Court’s Order (supra para. 65). In this regard, the Court takes note of the observations presented by the Commission and the representatives, and finds that the said testimony may help the Court determine the facts of this case, so that it will be assessed according to the rules of sound judicial discretion and the body of evidence in the proceedings. 70. The Commission and the representatives challenged the written expert opinion of Carlos Enrique Muñoz Pope. The Commission indicated that “the information presented only corresponds to part of the purpose”; and also added that “the statement is in the form of an allegation, which is unacceptable given the objectivity and impartiality that should characterize an expert witness.” The representatives indicated that the said opinion “is intended to justify the actions of the investigative and judicial authorities who have acted in the domestic proceedings” and that “the expert opinion is full of inexactitudes that are not 29 Cf. Loayza Tamayo v. Perú. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, para. 53; Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 24, para. 29, and Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 6, para. 21. 30 Cf. Loayza Tamayo v. Perú. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 24, para. 33, and Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 6, para. 23.