-49192. The State challenged the statement given by expert witness Samuel AbadYupanqui, submitted by the Commission on September 13, 2005 (supra paras. 60 and 65), due to, inter alia, “the sudden modification of the form such expert opinion was rendered, which turned an oral statement into a mere written pleading, thus impairing […] the State’s capacity to defend itself, [… which] would otherwise have had the option and the right to request the expert witness to make clarifications” at the public hearing. In this regard, the Court finds that the expert opinion of Mr. Abad-Yupanqui may be useful for the determination of the facts by the Court in the instant case inasmuch as it is in accordance with the purpose set forth by the Order of the President issued on August 1, 2005, (supra para. 51), and therefore it assesses it as a whole with the rest of the body of evidence, applying thereto the standards of reasonable credit and weight analysis and taking into consideration the comments filed by the State (supra para. 65). As to the impossibility to “request the expert witness to make clarifications regarding his opinion” due to the written form of the expert opinion, the Court reaffirms what has been previously stated in the sense that the submission of statements or expert opinions by means of a written sworn statement, whether it is given or not before a public official whose acts command full faith and credit, does not allow the parties "to cross-examine" witnesses or expert witnesses, but rather, as the State did in its pleading of September 26, 2005 regarding the statement given by Abad-Yupanqui (supra para. 65), a procedural opportunity is given them to file the comments they may deem relevant pursuant to the principle of the adversary proceedings.29 193. As to the compact disc submitted by the State before the public hearing was held (supra para. 63), the Court admits it into the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. Notwithstanding, the Court will assess the contents of the above mentioned disc30 in the context of the body of evidence, taking into consideration the comments submitted by the common intervener and by the Commission, as well as the fact that it contains a video edited by the State (supra paras. 70 and 71). 194. On the other hand, the State has tendered evidence regarding a fact which is supervening to the filing of the application (supra paras. 94 and 98), pursuant to Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure, whereby the Court admits it into the body of evidence, taking into consideration the comments filed by the parties (supra paras. 102, 103 and 105), and assesses it as a whole with the rest of the body of evidence.31 195. As to the requests regarding the statements given by María Angélica ArceGuerrero and Matilde Pinchi-Pinchi (supra paras. 45, 47 and 87), after admitting the evidence tendered at the public hearing, the oral and written final arguments by the parties and other supervening evidence tendered by Peru, the Court finds that, taking into consideration the body of evidence produced in the instant case and the comments filed by the Commission and by the common intervener (supra paras. 48 and 49), it is neither relevant nor necessary to admit the requests under Article (45(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 29 Cf. Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 25, para. 58. 30 Cf. Case of Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 40. 31 Cf. Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 16, para. 90; Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 25, para. 56; and Case of YATAMA, supra note 6, para. 113.