19 declarants directly aware of the facts. The acknowledgment is indirect and is only submitted to allege the existence of the facts indicated by Mrs. […] Rosendo Cantú.” 54. In particular, with regards to the testimony of Mrs. Eugenio Manuel, the State affirmed that “she makes reference to facts that do not form part of the litis of the present case and intends to connect two distinct procedures followed by this […] Court.” Likewise, the State contradicted that which was referenced by the witness “in the sense that there was an unjustified delay on behalf of the State agents of the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the time the claim was filed.” 55. Regarding the testimony by Mrs. Rosendo Morales, the State requested that the Court set aside the content “that refers to the events that they mention have recently occurred in regards to his granddaughter and daughter, when they deal with events related to the implementation of provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court.” Likewise, it requested the Tribunal not to consider “the facts that she addresses in her testimony and are not known to her.” 56. Because of the testimony of Mrs. Cantú Garcia, the State also requested that the Court set aside “that which does not have to do directly with the [litis] of the case and does not apply to her. 57. The State requested that the Court dismiss outright the testimony of Mrs. Gutierrez Moreno “for contextualizing the form in which the facts alleged by the petitionaries occurred, in contravention with the system of individual petitions” and for not referring to the facts and circumstances attended by the witness. 58. In regards to the testimony of Mr. Ramirez Rodriguez, the State affirmed “it should be dismissed outright because it intends for the Court to analyze, in contravention of the system of individual petitions, the alleged context in which the alleged facts occurred.” In addition, the State affirmed that the witness “was not clear on the facts of the present case and confused the development of the investigation with the case […] Fernandez Ortega” and as such, it does not satisfy the “requirements for the testimony to have the full probative weight.” 59. The Court notes that the State contested some of the testimonial statements, principally on the basis that the witnesses refer to facts that are outside the purpose of this case, or that there is evidence that contradicts their affirmations, or that they had not been direct witnesses of the facts. These observations refer to the merits of the dispute; therefore, in the corresponding section of the Judgment, the Court will assess these statements by the witnesses insofar as they correspond to the purpose defined by the President of the Court (supra para. 28 and 29), taking into account the body of evidence, the State’s observations, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 60. In regard to the expert opinions, the State requested that the Court dismisses any mention made by Correa González, Ortiz Elizondo, and Arroyo Vargas, during the public hearing and per affidavit, regarding the rape of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, because the opinions are outside of the scope for which they were summoned and are facts that do not involve them directly. 61. Moreover, the State requested the Court to dismiss the expert opinion of Mrs. Perlin “because the expert value and objectivity in which it was rendered may be compromised given that she ‘currently practices law in the state of New York’ and has not once carried out a field study in the state of Guerrero.” Moreover, the State affirmed that eight pages of the expert opinion “are based entirely on the [Diagnostic Report on Access to Justice by Indigenous Peoples of Mexico: Case Study of Oaxaca], attempting to […] associate the aforesaid […] in an unjustified manner with the case before us” and that “the lack of objectivity of the expert opinion[] is accentuated even more because she refers at times to the brief of pleadings [and] motions” in this case.