19 supported by the judicial case file.” The Court, however, accepts this evidence to the extent that it is related to the purpose established in the Order of the Court (supra para. 65), taking into account the observations of the Commission and the representatives, and it will be assessed according to the rules of sound judicial discretion and the body of evidence in the proceedings. 71. The representatives challenged the sworn written statement of Rolando Alberto Rodríguez, stating that “he could have an interest in the result of these proceedings,” because he is Manuel Antonio Noriega’s lawyer, and his name appears in the judicial proceedings relating to Heliodoro Portugal’s disappearance as the person who issued the order for his detention. Nevertheless, the Court admits this evidence, to the extent that it relates to the purpose established in the Order of the Court (supra para. 65), bearing in mind the observations of the representatives, and it will be assessed in accordance with the rules of sound judicial discretion and the body of evidence in the proceedings. 72. Regarding the sworn written statements of Gerardo Victoria and Edgardo Sandoval, the representatives indicated that, in the case of the former, his testimony “is only partially true,” because the medical care provided to the Portugal family “was not adapted to their requirements.” In relation to Mr. Sandoval’s testimony, they indicated that the measures taken by the State to comply with the Inter-American Commission’s recommendations in its Report 103/05 “were not only belated, but also ineffectual.” In this regard, the Court takes into account the observations submitted by the representatives, and considers that these statements could help the Court determine the facts of the instant case, to the extent that they are in keeping with the purpose established in the Order of the Court (supra para. 65), and it will assess them in accordance with the rules of sound judicial discretion and all the evidence in the proceedings. 73. The State challenged the sworn written statement of Roberto Arosemena because “it did not meet the minimal requirements for admission as testimonial evidence”; it argued that, instead of testimony, Mr. Arosemena had presented an “argument full of accusations that correspond to the personal ideology of the deponent.” However, the Court admits this evidence, to the extent that it relates to the purpose established in the Order of the President (supra para. 65), bearing in mind the observations of the State, and it will be assessed in accordance with the rules of sound judicial discretion and in light of all the evidence in the proceedings. 74. The State challenged the sworn written statement of Jacqueline Riquelme, considering it inadmissible, because it was time-barred. In this regard, the Court observes that, on January 9, 2008, the date on which the respective time limit expired, the representatives presented an electronic version of Ms. Riquelme’s testimony and forwarded the original version on January 11, 2008, in keeping with the time limit established in Article 26(1) of the Rules of Procedure. In addition, the State alleged that this testimony “[d]oes not constitute an assessment of the individual psychological conditions of Graciela De León, Patria Portugal, Franklin Portugal and Román Mollah” and that “[its] conclusions have not been validated.” In this regard, the Court takes note of the observations of the State, and considers that the said testimony can help the Court determine the facts of this case, to the extent that it is in keeping with the purpose determined in the Order of the Court (supra para. 65), and it will assess it in accordance with the rules of sound judicial discretion and the body of evidence in the proceedings. 75. The State contested the written expert opinion of Freddy Armando Peccerelli, arguing that it “has fundamental flaws that negate all of its probative value.” According to the State, “[i]t is an eminently theoretical and abstract document […] based on incomplete