18 38. As regards the depositions of the alleged victims, the State expressed, in general terms, that witnesses Cabrera García and Olivar López and witness Cortés Salgado rendered “many and considerable contradictory statements, and even made further statements, not only about the alleged acts of torture against the petitioners but also in relation to the facts mentioned by the representatives.” As regards witness Montiel Flores, the State also alleged that there seemed to be numerous contradictions in his statement. To that end, the Tribunal shall evaluate, in the merits of the case, whether the statements made by these witnesses are based on evidence. 39. According to the case law of this Tribunal, in view of the fact that the alleged victims have a direct interest in the case, their statements shall not be assessed separately but as a whole with the rest of the body of evidence of the proceeding,38 inasmuch as they are useful as long as they provide more information on the alleged violations and their consequences. The Court notes that the purpose of the State’s objections is to discredit the evidentiary value of the depositions made by the alleged victims in this proceeding. Mainly, the Court considers that such depositions would show differences with the previous depositions made under domestic law or rather, that two alleged victims did not witness certain facts on which they depose or refer to facts that do not form part of the subject-matter of the case. The Tribunal considers that such objections do not challenge the admissibility of such evidence but that they question its evidentiary value. Based on the foregoing, the Court admits the statements mentioned, without prejudice to the fact that its evidentiary value may only be considered regarding the matters that adjust to the purpose timely defined by the President of the Court (supra paras. 25 and 26) therefore, the Court shall consider the body of evidence, the State’s observations and the rules of sound judgment. 40. In relation to the deposition made by witness Patrón Sánchez, the State pointed out that “the initial part of [his] deposition” was “absolutely biased” since the witness made reference to “facts and circumstances that the witness does not know for a fact, as the witness expressed.” Hence, the State requested the Tribunal “to reject the entire deposition.” Likewise, as regards the other considerations made by the witness, in general terms the State “limit[ed] to submit the judicial case files to corroborate the witness’s falsehood;” the State further alleged that “such irregularities should have been submitted in the brief of pleadings, motions and evidence, not as mere observations without any support or basis,” apart from the fact that “there are remedies in the judicial system to challenge the irregularities mentioned by the witness.” To that end, the Tribunal shall assess, in the merits of the case, whether the statements made by this witness are based on evidence. On the other hand, the Court recalls that the evaluation on biased or unbiased depositions is not made in relation to the witnesses, in respect of whom it is appropriate to assess the evidentiary weight of their statements; this shall be done at the merits stage when assessing the deposition together with the rest body of evidence. 41. As regards the deposition by witness Valdovino Ríos, the State pointed out that “the witness made reference to facts that are not related to this case, specifically, regarding experiences that Mr. Felipe Arreaga allegedly had on dates before and after the detention” of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. Due to this reason, the State requested to reject the depositions not related to the case. On the other hand, the State pointed out that the witness “made several considerations about various activities carried out by Mr. Felipe Arreaga and Messrs. Rodolfo Montiel and Teodoro Cabrera which the witness did not know for a fact and of which the witness 38 Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, supra note 37, para. 43; Case of Rosendo Cantu et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 52; and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 47.