29 [because] the investigations on the fate or whereabouts of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco [fell] upon the agents of the Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Federation, who had under their responsibility the integration of the corresponding preliminary inquiry.” In that sense, it indicated that Mr. Sotelo “[i]s not nor has he been an agent of the Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Federation, reason for which, taking into account the object for which he was proposed by the [I]nter-American Commission, he is not suitable to act as a witness […].” The State expressed that the Court shall take into consideration that “[t]he statement is based on the witness’ subjective assessments, [which] contravene [the] Court’s jurisprudential criterion […].” 99. The Tribunal considers that the State’s objections regarding Mr. José Sotelo’s suitability to act as a witness in the present case are time-barred. However, the Tribunal observes that Mr. Sotelo’s statement does not adjust in its totality to the object specified by the President of the Tribunal (supra para. 69). Specifically, in the points indicated as (1), (2), (3), and (5)67 of his statement, the witness refers to facts that are not part of the object of his statement. Additionally, in points (6) and (7), the witness refers to personal opinions and conclusions that are also not related to the object of his statement.68 In that sense, the Court will not grant the information referred to in those sections any evidentiary value whatsoever. 100. However, the Court considers that point (4) of the statement offered by Mr. Sotelo, regarding the case of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco, is in accordance with the object for which it was ordered (supra para. 68). In this regard, the State did not invalidate the specific information in said section instead it only mentioned that the veracity of those documents had not been determined by the Public Prosecutors’ Office. However, the Tribunal points out that it corresponds to the State to invalidate those documentary sources before the Court, regardless of the different processes it shall carry out at a domestic level. In that sense, the Court grants Mr. José Sotelo’s statement evidentiary value only in what refers to that stated in point (4) of the same. Said statement will be considered taking into consideration the totality of the body of evidence in the present case. 101. The Court observes that in some parts of the statement offered by Mrs. Martha Patricia Valadez Sanabria, the witness issued personal opinions regarding the actions carried out by the “Federation’s social representation.”69 Therefore, the Court will not grant those parts evidentiary value. 67 Mr. José Sotelo refers basically to the conditions in the elaboration of the Report named “The Mexican Army and the Dirty Way in Guerrero” and of the “General Historic Report ¡Que no vuelva a suceder!”; as well as the alleged political context of the guerrilla in the State of Guerrero and the State’s apparent policy in matters of forced disappearances. 68 Mr. Sotelo mentioned that “[h]e was presenting his position […] with regard to the conceptualization and methodology followed in the preparation of the Report tending to recreate the ‘historical truth’ of the facts, differentiating it from the ‘legal truth’, [and that] he contest[ed] the position of the State of Mexico, which he considers would have to be officially validated […].” Likewise, Mr. Sotelo mentioned that “[h]e conclude[d] with the presentation […] of the conditions he consider[ed] necessary to overcome the current state of disintegration of social fabric as a result of the impunity and lack of interest of the State of Mexico in achieving justice, informing of the truth, and repairing the damage.” 69 Mrs. Valadez Sanabria stated that: “Of all the diligences previously reviewed, it should be pointed out that the social representation of the Federation, did not skimp on presenting all the evidence that Could elucidate the facts denounced […] Likewise, the investigating authority did not limit itself to receiving certain statements and carrying out cabinet inspections, but it also turned to experts in different fields […]; that is, since the start of the preliminary inquiry in the year 2002 and up to the consignment in 2005, the agent of the Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Federation has been effective in its actions […] and therefore […] it has developed its activity pursuant with the principles of effectiveness, certainty, legality, impartiality, and professionalism.”