sufficiently founded.23 In this regard, in relation to the observations on the contents of the expert opinions, the Court understands that they do not contest their admissibility, but rather are designed to contest the probative value of the opinions. The pertinent parts of these opinions will be considered in the corresponding chapters of this judgment. 29. In particular, with regard to the State's observations on the alleged biased and partial result of the expert opinion of Ms. Vázquez González, the expert witness stated during the public hearing that she “was able to review some of [the documents from the cases involving the Barrios family] related […] basically to the final decisions in the different cases,” so that she answered the questions she was asked in that regard, based on the information she had. The Court will consider the content of this expert opinion to the extent that the expert witnessed referred to specific facts and situations of the investigations that she was aware of and that fell within her expertise; moreover, the expert opinion complied with the purpose for which it was requested (supra para. 14) Regarding the methodology of Mr. Baraybar’s opinion, without prejudice to taking into account the State’s observations, the Court notes that the said opinion includes an explanation of the procedure used. Expert witness Baraybar indicated that he had based his study on the documentation presented to the Court by Venezuela and compared the procedures used in the investigations into the alleged extrajudicial executions with the relevant international standards. The Court considers that the objection to the method used by the expert witness, which is sufficiently explained in his opinion, does not affect its admissibility. Lastly, regarding the State's argument that the expert opinion of Ms. Valdez Labadi does not correspond to the purpose established by the President, the Court will consider the State’s observation and reiterates that it only admits statements that are in keeping with the purpose opportunely defined (supra para. 14). Based on the foregoing, the Court admits the expert opinions indicated, to the extent that they are in keeping with the purpose required, and will assess them together with the rest of the body of evidence, taking into account the observations of the State, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. VI PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS A. Discontinuance of two members of the family 30. On June 6, 2011, the representatives advised that Dalila Ordalyz Ortuño and Junclis Esmil Rangel Terán, widows of Benito Antonio Barrios and Narciso Barrios, respectively, had expressed their intention “not to continue with the proceedings before the [Inter-American] Court owing to the apprehensions that this has caused them and the impact it could have on their children, especially after the attempt on the life of Nestor Caudi [Barrios] in January 2011.” 31. In this regard, the Court takes note of the discontinuance by the alleged victims for the said reasons. Consequently, based on the express intention of Mrs. Ordalyz Ortuño and Mrs. Rangel Terán, communicated by their representatives, the Court will not rule on the alleged violations to their detriment. 23 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 42, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 48. 15