27 87. In relation to the expert opinion rendered by expert witness Gautier Hirsch, the State pointed out that the expert evidence furnished is inadmissible given that “the application filed against the State did not include an accusation by the Commission for the acts of torture against Mr. Vélez Loor.” Likewise, it indicated that said expert report “constitut[ed] an expansion of the evidence originally furnished by the Inter-American Commission, evidence that, at its moment, was objected to by the State insofar as there is no correlation that would allow for the unequivocal determination that the pathology and physical after-effects presented by Jesús Vélez[,] corresponded, in fact, to situations that took place in Panama or that they [could] be the responsibility of Panamanian State agents.” Finally, the State mentioned that “the expert witness, in his report, makes reference to facts he has no knowledge of and that are not part of his field of expertise, like the case of the description of the living conditions of Mr. Vélez, or that the national justice did not produce positive results, among other things. [F]acts that, in any case, could only be referred to by means of a testimony insofar as they correspond to facts he has personal knowledge of and that are not the result of a special knowledge or expertise.” 88. Regarding the expert opinion of the expert witness proposed by the State, Hoyos Phillips, the representatives indicated that the content of his expert assessment exceeded the purpose defined by the President of the Court, in the understanding that the expert witness made declarations “on several occasions, about the facts of the case and even specifically referred to orders wherein the [alleged] victim was punished and conclud[ed] his expert opinion with specific conclusions about the remedies that, in his opinion, the [alleged] victim had access to.” Likewise, they pointed out that the expert opinion “reveal[ed] that the expert witness did not know the facts of the case, despite having insist[ed] in making reference to them without explaining what or how he k[new] about what he was affirming.” Finally, they noted that the expert opinion "is very brief and does not provide [the] Court with relevant information for it [...] to assess the suitability and effectiveness of the remedies to which he refers.” 89. The Tribunal considers relevant to point out that, unlike witnesses, who shall avoid offering personal opinions, expert witnesses may offer technical or personal opinions as long as they refer to their special knowledge or experience. Additionally, the experts may refer both to specific matters of the action or any other relevant subject of the litigation, as long as they are limited to the object for which they were convened61 and their conclusions are well founded. The Court notes that the State contested the opinion of the expert witness proposed by the representatives, Gautier Hirsch, on the grounds that he presented facts in his opinion that were not defined in the factual basis of the application. Likewise, it indicated that said report constituted an expansion of the evidence furnished by the Commission and that the expert witness made references to facts he had no knowledge of and were not the product of his special knowledge. On the other hand, the representatives indicated that the content of the expert opinion of Mr. Hoyos Phillips exceeded the purpose defined by the President of the Court. This Tribunal shall assess, in the corresponding chapter of the Judgment, the content of the opinions provided by the experts witnesses as long as they fit with the purpose timely defined by the President of the Tribunal (supra para. 8), according to the object of the case, taking into account the body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judgment. 61 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo, supra note 17, para. 42; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 27, para. 68, and Case of Fernández Ortega et al., supra note 27, para. 61.