20 President of the Court (supra para. 28), in accordance with the object of the litigation, taking into account the body of evidence, the State’s observations, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 59. Lastly, with regard to the expert opinions, the State asked the Court to reject the opinion of Mr. Carbonell Sánchez “because [the expert witness] did not take into consideration that, in the Mexican State, federal, state and military jurisdictions are fully demarcated.” If soldiers “take part in a crime against a civilian, it will be the courts of the common or federal judicial system that has jurisdiction, precisely ratione personae, and the military jurisdiction is legally and constitutionally prevented from hearing the case.” 60. Regarding the expert opinion of Mrs. Perlin, the State indicated that “the content of this expert opinion relates to her experience in the preparation of a diagnosis of access to justice for indigenous peoples in the state of Oaxaca, seeking to equate this experience to the [s]tate of Guerrero, without taking into account that the social reality of each state is totally different.” It added that the expert witness “has insufficient knowledge of the case and therefore makes a subjective appraisal of it, which leads her to reach erroneous conclusions.” Mexico asked the Court to reject this opinion completely, “because it is based on the subjective appraisal of the situation that prevails in the [s]tate of Guerrero as regards access to [j]ustice for the indigenous community, it expresses subjective opinions about how the investigation procedure was undertaken and her expertise is debatable for the effects of this case.” 61. The Court considers it pertinent to indicate that, contrary to the witnesses who should avoid giving personal opinions, the expert witnesses provide technical or personal opinions related to their specialized knowledge or experience. In addition, expert witnesses may refer both to specific points of the litis and to any other relevant point of the litigation, provided they circumscribe their comments to the purpose for which they were summoned42 and that their conclusions are sufficiently founded. First, the Court notes that the expert opinions of Mr. Carbonell Sánchez and Mrs. Perlin refer to the purpose for which they were required (supra para. 28). In addition, in regard to the expert opinion of Mr. Carbonell Sánchez, the Court notes that Mexico’s observations refer to the merits of the case, so that the pertinent aspects will be considered, in the corresponding section of the Judgment. With regard to the expert opinion of Mrs. Perlin, Mexico objected both to her qualifications as an expert and also to the content of her opinion. Regarding the evidence attached, the Court observes that said expert witness has broad international experience on issues of access to and administration of justice and has headed a project to make a specific diagnosis in Mexico of the issue that is the purpose of her opinion as an official of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Mexico; a project with which the State’s local and federal authorities collaborated.43 Finally, the fact that the diagnosis of access to justice for indigenous peoples that she headed referred to a state other than Guerrero, is not a circumstance that, in itself, and in the absence of any other grounds, would disqualify the expert opinion. Based on the above, the Court decides to admit both opinions and will assess them together with the rest of the body of evidence, taking into account the State’s observations and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 42 Cf. Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 42; Case of Radilla Pacheco , supra note 33, para. 97, and Case of Chitay Nech et al, supra note 18, para. 57. 43 Cf. Report on Access to Justice for the Indigenous of Mexico, Case Study of Oaxaca [Diagnóstico sobre el Acceso a la Justicia para los Indígenas en Mexico, Estudio de Case of de Oaxaca], United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Mexico and curriculum vitae of expert witness Perlin (case file on the merits, tome III, folios 1202, 1203, 1208 and 1440 to 1443).