23 themselves, extremely biased and self-interested, and therefore they must be assessed very prudently as regards the legal value they may have.” On the other hand, the State challenged the testimony of Miguel Ángel Gómez Paquiyauri “[b]ecause he is the blood brother of the alleged victims and due to the direct interest of the outcome of the instant proceeding, and because he is neither impartial nor objective, and because at the time of the facts he was a minor, and making him reminisce would in some way affect him” (supra para. 29). 62. In his March 1, 2004 order the President stated that “there have been no challenges or recusations to appearance of the witnesses offered, as the State has merely questioned the objectiveness of the statements of Marcelina Paquiyauri Illanes de Gómez, Ricardo Samuel Gómez Quispe [and] Lucy Rosa Gómez Paquiyauri, next of kin of the alleged victims. In this regard, the President deems that the statements of the next of kin of the alleged victims cannot be appraised in an isolated manner, but rather within the set of evidence tendered in the proceeding, and they are useful insofar as they may provide further information about the facts argued in the instant case.22” 63. The Court admits the statements made by Marcelina Paquiyauri Illanes de Gómez, Samuel Gómez Quispe, Lucy Rosa Gómez Paquiyauri and Miguel Ángel Gómez Paquiyauri, insofar as they are in accordance with the object of the examination, as proposed respectively by the Inter-American Commission and by the representative of the alleged victims and their next of kin. In this regard, this Court deems that since they are next of kin of the alleged victims and they have a direct interest in this case, their statements cannot be appraised in an isolated manner, but rather within the set of evidence in the proceeding, as the President stated.23 Regarding both to the merits and to reparations, the testimony of the next of kin of the alleged victims is useful insofar as it may provide additional information on the consequences of the violations that may have been committed.24 64. The State argued that the expert opinions rendered by Inge Genefke and Hans Petter Houguen during the public hearing (supra para. 49.h and 49.i) “were not impartial, and were even less objective[;] and their statement[s] can only be considered a reference and must be viewed as an opinion and in no case as technical expert opinions that come close to legal certainty.” 65. The Court admits the expert opinions of Hans Petter Houguen and Inge Genefke insofar as they are in accordance with the object defined by the President when he ordered them (supra para. 24), and it will appraise their content within the context of the body of evidence, following the rules of competent analysis. 66. The Court will assess the evidentiary value, in this case, of the documents, statements, and expert opinions submitted to it in writing or as oral statements. The evidence tendered during all stages of the proceeding has been integrated in a single 22 See, inter alia, Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, para. 53; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 132; Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 66; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, para. 57; and Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 85. 23 See Gómez Paquiyauri Case. March 1, 2004 Order of the President, Whereas nine. 24 See, inter alia, Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, para. 53; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 132; Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 66; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, para. 57; and Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 22, para. 85.