21 international proceedings.53 Nevertheless, the Court considers that the fact that the questions of the other party are not answered does not affect a statement’s admissibility; rather, it is a factor that, owing to the implications of a deponent’s silences, could have an impact on the weight give to the evidence provided by a statement or an expert opinion; an aspect that must be assessed when examining the merits of the case. 54 57. Meanwhile, with regard to the statement of Leonel Enrique Veliz Franco, the State considered that “the witness has no proof of any of the steps taken by his mother; rather, he knows about them because of what she has told him”; it raised questions as to the “steps [for which] he accompanied his mother,” and about some of the statements relating to the investigation and the facts of the case, and the contradiction of the answers to the State’s questions. It added, in relation to the statement by José Roberto Franco, that “the State makes the same observations as those made with regard to his brother, Leonel Enrique Veliz Franco, with regard to the general aspects,” and pointed out some contradictions between the latter’s statement and that of his mother, and between his own statement and his answers to the questions posed by the State. It asserted that “as their name indicates, testimonial statements are a probative means in which individuals who have witnessed an act testify about it because they have first-hand knowledge of the said act.” It affirmed that, in this case, “the preparation of the witnesses is evident and also, instead of only referring to the facts that they know first-hand, they give personal opinions that favor the party that has proposed them without these opinions having any basis.” In this regard, the Court understands that both these individuals gave their statement in their capacity as presumed victims and this Court’s case law has established that the statements of the presumed victims cannot be assessed in isolation, but rather within the body of evidence of the proceedings, because they are useful to the extent that they can provide further information on the alleged violations and their consequences. 55 The other observations of the State refer to the content of the statements, which does not cause problems as regards their admissibility, and will be considered when assessing each statement together with the body of evidence and in keeping with the rules of sound judicial discretion. 58. Regarding the affidavit prepared by witness Luisa María de León, the State repeated some of the observations it had made on the final list of deponents for the public hearing, because she was offered as a witness and not as an expert witness. On this matter, the Court refers to the Order of the President of the Court of April 10, 2013. It also refers to its previous considerations in this Judgment concerning the failure of this witness to answer certain questions posed by the State (supra para. 56). In relation to her statement, the State questioned the legal analysis she had made. The Court considers that the State’s observations refer to the content of the statement; thus they do not affect its admissibility and, in any case, the observations will be taken into account when assessing the statement together with the body of evidence and in keeping with the rules of sound judicial discretion. 59. As regards the expert opinions presented by affidavit, the State affirmed, in general, that “most of the expert witnesses did not provide their expert opinion pursuant to the oath established in Article 51(4) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure,” and also that “nor did the statements adhere to the purpose assigned to them by the Court in the corresponding Order, but rather they were in keeping with the purpose for which their expert opinions were offered.” It considered that what interested the expert witnesses was “to express their opinions and disclose the information that interested them, either personally or professionally, or worse still, without any objectivity, but rather to favor those who had 53 Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 3, 1998. Series C No. 40, para. 30, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 224, para. 33 54 Case of Díaz Peña, supra, para. 33, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In vitro fertilization”) v. Costa Rica, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257, para. 56. 55 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux, supra, para. 31.