immediately available to the Court and to the other parties.66 In this case, no objections or observations were made by the other parties or the Commission regarding the content and authenticity of the documents. B.2) Admission of the statements of the alleged victims, and of testimonial and expert evidence 67. With regard to the statements of the alleged victims, witnesses and experts rendered at the public hearing and through affidavits, the Court considers these pertinent only insofar as they relate to the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the Order requiring them (supra para. 10). These statements will be assessed in the corresponding chapter, together with the entire body of evidence, taking into account the observations made by the parties. 67 68. According to the case law of this Court, the statements made by the alleged victims cannot be assessed separately but as part of the entire body of evidence in the proceedings, since they are useful insofar as they may provide more information on the alleged violations and their consequences.68 Based on the foregoing, the Court admits these statements (supra para. 10 and 63), which shall be assessed according to the criteria indicated. 69. In relation to the affidavits, the State argued that “these should be limited to the purpose of this case, in other words, to the domestic judicial proceedings and, consequently, all statements related to the direct consequences of the accident suffered by Sebastián Furlan shall be excluded from analysis�� by the Court. In this regard, the Court notes that the State’s argument was presented in a general manner, which makes its analysis difficult. It is not clear what the State means by the expression “direct consequences of the accident,” bearing in mind that the facts of the case are related to different proceedings instituted as a result of said accident. Consequently, the Court considers that the State did not present sufficient arguments for it to reject the admissibility of those affidavits. Nevertheless, the Court will assess the argument and will ensure that the affidavits are limited to the purpose defined by the President (supra para. 10). 70. The State also claimed that the expert witness Subies “carried out specific assessments based on her own subjective opinion of the Furlan case.” It argued that she “spoke at length about her personal experience, her litigation work and stated without grounds that the number of attorneys specializing in disability matters in the Republic of Argentina is not sufficient,” which “is not supported by statistics or studies and is not related to the purpose of the witness’s statement.” It argued that the aspect related to the purpose of the expert report on “the possibilities of public health coverage” was not “presented in a complete or exhaustive manner” and, in particular, that no reference “was made at any time to the ‘Incluir’ Salud Federal Health Program (formerly PROFE), which was the appropriate health system to provide comprehensive care to Sebastián Furlan.” In this regard, the Court 66 Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations of Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 26, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 37. 67 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 43. In this regard, the Court recalls the observation made in the order summoning this case, in which it was determined that Sebastián Furlan’s statement – forwarded by the representatives on video- constitutes documentary evidence and, accordingly, shall be assessed in due course, within the context of the existing body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. Cf. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 24, 2012. Available at: http://corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/furlan.pdf 68 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits, para. 43, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244, para. 27. 21