25 . 88. The representatives objected the inclusion of several documents provided by the State in its response to the application because it considered them irrelevant for the object of the present case.50 This Tribunal decides to include them in the body of evidence and assess them taking into account the observations of the representatives and in the totality of the body of evidence. With regard to appendix A.17, its content does not adjust to the object of the case and therefore its inclusion in the body of evidence results irrelevant. 89. The Court will assess the statements and expert opinions offered by the witnesses and experts, as long as they adjust to the object defined by the President in the Order of June 11, 2008 and to the object of litigation of the present case, taking into consideration the observations presented by the parties51 and applying the rules of competent analysis. They will be analyzed in the corresponding chapter. By virtue of the fact that the alleged victims have a direct interest in the case, their statements may not be assessed in an isolated manner, but instead within the totality of the evidence of the proceedings, 52 even though they are useful in the sense that they can provide more information on the violations and their consequences.53 49 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 59; Case of Yvon Neptune V. Haiti. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 30, and Case of the Saramaka People V. Suriname, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 67. 50 Specifically, they requested that the following appendixes of the brief of response to the application be declared inadmissible: newspaper article published in the Venezuelan newspaper of national circulation “El Nacional”, dated April 16, 2002, containing the interviews carried out to the directors and representatives of several social communication media firms (appendix marked “A.7”); newspaper article published in the Venezuelan newspaper of national circulation “El Nacional”, dated July 12, 2007 (appendix marked “A.8”); transcript of the Program Primer Plano transmitted by RCTV on February 23, 2003 (appendix marked “A.10”); newspaper articles published in several Venezuelan newspapers of national circulation (appendix marked “A.11”); copy of the Decision issued by the Superintendence for the Promotion and Protection of Free Competition on February 24, 2005 (appendix marked “A.12”); copy of the Judgment issued by the First Administrative Court on May 11, 2005 (appendix marked “A.13”); DVD, identified as “Messages Transmitted During the Strike of 2002 and 2003,” including the different messages transmitted by the private social communication media firm during the months of December, moment at which the “Strike” held by the political sectors opposing the national government occurred (appendix marked “A.16”); CD including the presentation, in a Power Point format, of the work titled “How does Media Manipulate Us?”. Prepared by the psychiatrist Heriberto González Méndez (appendix marked “A.17”); DVD, identified as “Attacks to Institutions of the State”, including the multiple attacks and offenses against the democratic Venezuelan institutions, hurled during the transmission made by RCTV on December 6, 2002 (appendix marked “A.20”); DVD, identified as “Offenses against the President of the Republic”, including the multiple attacks and offenses against the majesty of the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, hurled by the journalists of RCTV (appendix marked “A.21”). 51 The representatives objected, in a brief presented on January 5, 2009, the State’s observations regarding several statements and expert opinions presented in its final written arguments. Specifically, they argued “the inadmissibility of the State’s observations to the testimonial statements,” they referred to “the alleged measures of protection adopted by the State” and to “how the State’s objections to the expert statement of the psychologist Magdalena López was time-barred.” The presentation of observations to the final arguments is not established in the Rules of Procedure within the written proceedings. On the other hand, even though it is true that the State did not forward its observations to several statements and expert opinions in the term granted by the Tribunal to that effect, the Court takes into consideration the State’s observations as they were presented in their final arguments in exercise of their right to a defense. Therefore, the Court will assess those evidentiary elements taking into account the observations of the parties, as long as they refer exclusively to those evidentiary elements. 52 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia, supra note 29, para. 54, and Case of Ticon Estrada V. Bolivia, supra note 48, para. 37. 53 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 44, para. 70; Case of García Prieto et al. V. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 22, and Case of Goiburú et al. V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 59.