representatives did not re-submit the statements recorded in DVD format of Messrs. F.A., I.A., D.A. and “X.A.”, even though they were informed, in a note of the Secretariat dated February 28, 2013, that was not possible to play the DVD. (supra para.61). 66. Finally, with respect to the State’s objections to certain items of evidence that “are not official”, are not signed, or were prepared by UDEFEGUA or by Mrs. Claudia Samayoa, the representative of the presumed victims in this case, or that did not specify what they were intended to prove, the Court considers that the State’s argument has a bearing on their evidentiary weight and scope, but does not affect their admissibility as part of the body of evidence. Therefore, the Court deems it appropriate to admit those documents that are relevant to the examination of this case, and will assess these within the context of the body of evidence, taking into account the State’s observations and the rules of sound judgment. B.2. Admission of testimonial and expert evidence 67. The Court notes that, in its final written arguments, the State objected to the admission of “the intervention” of H.I. as an expert witness or deponent for information purposes, arguing that she “lack[ed] objectivity and impartiality because […] she forms part of the Governing Board of the Protection Unit for Human Rights Defenders of Guatemala [UDEFEGUA].” The State also objected to the expert opinion of Mr. Luis Enrique Eguren, arguing that since the year 2000 “he has maintained a professional relationship [with Claudia Samayoa] because of the issue that unites them, […] the protection of human rights defenders” and this, according to the State, “proves that this expert witness has maintained and still maintains a close friendship and affinity with the claimants, for which reason the expert report […] lacks objectivity and validity.” In addition, the State made several observations regarding the relevance, scope, veracity and credibility of the statements and reports rendered by B.A., E.M., Hina Jilani, H.I. and Luis Enrique Eguren Fernández at the public hearing in this case and via affidavits. 68. In this regard, the Court confirms that, in its answer brief, the State had already objected to Mrs. H.I. rendering an expert report for the reasons indicated (supra para. 6). The Court ratifies the ruling issued in the Order of the President of the Court, on December 20, 2013, stating that, “in light of the particularities of the evidence proposed, [the President] deems it pertinent that [it] be offered to the proceeding, not as expert evidence but rather for information purposes only.” 63 This evidence will be assessed taking into account the observations of the State, the body of evidence and the rules of sound judgment. 69. With respect to the State’s arguments regarding the expert report of Luis Enrique Eguren, as well as other observations regarding the statements and expert opinions rendered at the public hearing and in affidavits, the Court considers that the State’s position has a bearing on their evidentiary weight and scope, but does not affect their admissibility. Consequently, these will be assessed within the context of the body of evidence, taking into account said observations, as well as the rules of sound judgment. 70. The Court deems it pertinent to admit the statements of the presumed victim, the witnesses, the expert witnesses and the deponent for information purposes, rendered during the public hearing and through affidavits, only insofar as these are consistent with the object defined by the President of the Court in the Order requiring them (supra para. 8). Similarly, in accordance with the Court’s case law, the statements rendered by the presumed victims cannot be assessed separately, but rather within the body of evidence in this case, since are useful only to the extent that they can provide greater information on the alleged violations and their consequences. 64 VII FACTS 71. This Chapter will establish the facts of this case, based on the factual framework submitted to the consideration of the Court by the Commission, taking into consideration 63 Order of the President of the Court, December 20, 2013, Considering para. 15, supra para. 8. 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 v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 30, 2014. Series C No. 276, para. 31. 64 20