69 . the alleged violation. At the same time, it stated that the expert opinion of Mrs. López de Ibáñez “was performed collectively, that is, it includes observations for 15 individuals, generalizing the conclusions and the aspects clinically observed;” and that it was a deficient expert opinion since “it is not observed that the presentation of results occurred in an individualized manner, thus allowing us to observe and specify the alleged disorders that each of the victims presented in a greater or smaller level.” 269. The Court observes that the representatives based their argument, inter alia, on the statements of the alleged victims, several of which referred to infringements to their integrity based on different situations in which they were involved, several of which were not related to any specific event. Specifically, they stated that as a result of the attacks suffered in the exercise of their professions they developed “tension”, “stress”, ”fear”, “panic”, “sadness”, ”psychological pressure”, among other ailments. However, this Tribunal has repeatedly considered that the statements offered by the alleged victims and other people with a direct interest in the case cannot be assessed separately, even though they are useful in the sense that they can offer greater information on the violations and their consequences (supra para. 89). 270. Besides these statements, the only evidence offered in this sense is the mentioned expert opinion of Mrs. Magdalena López de Ibáñez, expert proposed by the representatives. This expert opinion consists of a psychological evaluation of 15 alleged victims, through the application of individual interviews, exams, and questionnaires to each of them. 281 271. The Court considers that an expert opinion must be supported by sufficient information or verifiable facts, based on reliable methods and principles, and must be related to the facts of the case. In the assessment of this expert opinion, the Court finds, first of all, that it is not supported by enough information on the physical and mental state of the alleged victims. The evidence presented regarding the ailments suffered is not enough and does not specify if they received medical treatment. What is relevant is that the expert opinion did not, in many cases, refer specifically to the facts of the case that in fact affected the health of the alleged victims, and it even makes constant reference to fcts that do not correspond to this case. Even though it is useful to determine certain alterations in the health of the alleged victims, it is insufficient to establish a specific relationship between these alterations and the facts of the present case. 272. Despite the aforementioned, it is clear to the Tribunal that the alleged victims were the object of intimidations and hindrances, and in some cases of attacks, threats, and harassments, in the exercise of their journalistic activities in the proven facts (supra para. 265). Some of these people indicated in their statements that they had been affected in their professional and personal lives in different ways. Some stated the fear they had of performing their journalistic tasks on the street282 and they mentioned that during the exercise of their profession it was necessary to use bulletproof vests and anti-gas masks.283 281 Cf. expert opinion offered by Magdalena López de Ibañez before notary public (affidavit) on June 25, 2008 (dossier of evidence, volume XVIII, folios 5641-5647). 282 Cf. statement offered by Carlos Colmenares at the public hearing held before the Inter-American Court on August 7, 2008; statement offered by Antonion José Monroy Clemente at the public hearing held before the InterAmerican Court on August 7, 2008; statement offered by Pedro Nikken before notary public (affidavit) on June 25, 2008 (dossier of evidence, volume XVIII, folios 5594); and statement offered before a notary public (affidavit) by Luisiana Rios Paiva on June 25, 2007 (dossier of evidence, volume XVIII, folios 5598-5602). 283 Cf. statement offered by Carlos Colmenares at the public hearing held before the Inter-American Court on August 7, 2008; statement offered by Antonion José Monroy Clemente at the public hearing held before the InterAmerican Court on August 7, 2008; statement offered by Pedro Nikken before notary public (affidavit) on June 25, 2008 (dossier of evidence, volume XVIII, folios 5594). See also, statement offered by Eduardo Guillermo Sapene Granier before notary public (affidavit) on June 25, 2008 (dossier of evidence, volume XVIII, folios 5588); and statement offered by Marcel Granier before notary public (affidavit) on June 29, 2008 (dossier of evidence, volume XVIII, folios 5650).