20 of this case. 67. The State presented various observations regarding the following expert opinions rendered by: (a) Fernando Ruiz Acosta, regarding whom it considered that in his opinion various inconsistencies occurred that affect the amount of compensation, namely: (i) the purposes of pecuniary responsibility, specifically the responsibility of the State, (ii) the concept of damage, and (iii) the notion of material damage; (b) Alejandro Valencia Villa, regarding whom it made a series of questions related to: (i) the attribution of international responsibility; (ii) the content of the duty to prevent and its difference with the duty to investigate; (iii) factual references made in the expert opinion that the State does not share, and (iv) the affirmations made in the expert opinion about the lack of diligence in the investigations. The State asked the Court to take into account its observations, which are based on the standards developed by this Court. (c) Liz Arévalo, regarding whom it considered that the document sent by her does not constitute an expert opinion, it is "a preconceived opinion, openly subjective and with verifiable scientific deficiencies from a technical and professional perspective." It considered that the opinions and questions about the PAPSIVI (acronym for the Program for Psychosocial Care and Comprehensive Health for Victims of Conflict) that were offered in the affidavit were made about a version that is not currently in force or that cannot be linked to the program. 68. This Court notes that the State, in its observations on the expert reports, questions their content. The Court understands that the State does not challenge its admissibility, but rather questions its probative value. Consequently, it admits the expert opinions of Fernando Ruiz Acosta, Alejandro Valencia Villa, and Liz Arévalo, which will be considered as relevant as long as they are in accordance with the purpose ordered and taking into account the observations of the State. 69. Regarding the statement of Jaime Antonio Omeara Miraval, the State considered that his statement was given as a “hearsay witness –on many of the points that remain in dispute -, it is noteworthy that they are not directly recorded by the declarant". According to the State, "at various times his statement proves a third-party account, but not its veracity." It asked the Court to assess the evidence as a whole with the body of evidence available, in particular with the statement made by said person on August 17, 2010 before Prosecutor 66 of the UNDH (National Unit for Human Rights) of the Office of the National Attorney General. The Court considers that the observations of the State question the probative weight of the statement, which does not create a problem as to its admissibility. This Court admits the statement of Jaime Antonio Omeara Miraval, and for its assessment it will take into account his status as alleged victim, the relevant observations of the State, as well as the body of evidence as a whole. VII FACTS 70. The Court will present, first, the contextual framework and, second, the personal and family circumstances of the alleged victims, as well as the events that occurred to each one of them. Finally, it will refer to the investigations of the attacks against Messrs. Omeara Carrascal, Omeara Miraval and Álvarez Sánchez. The statement that follows takes into consideration the points of clarification made by the State and the representatives, as well as those that arise