24 persons have a direct interest in the sub judice case, and their statements must be assessed within the respective context and they are accepted insofar as they are in accordance with the rest of the body of evidence.25 59. Regarding the expert opinions of the expert witnesses offered (supra 23, 44 a, f, i), which were neither challenged nor disputed, the Court admits them and gives them evidentiary value. With respect to the expert opinion of Dr. Leo Valladares Lanza, the State argued that his statement should be disqualified, because “when he was cross-examined by the [a]gent of the State, he evasively accept[ed] that he made statements to the Honduran media, ‘that the State would lose the case.’” In this regard, the State pointed out that there are “informal statements by the witnesses that contradict [the] statements [of the expert witness] rendered under oath in the witness stand, that were arranged.” The Court dismisses the objection raised by the State because it deems that said arguments are not sufficient to invalidate the expert opinion of Dr. Valladares. 60. The Court will assess in this case the evidentiary value of the documents, statements and expert opinions submitted and the latter rendered before it. The evidence submitted during all the stages of the proceeding has been included in a single body of evidence, for it to be considered as a whole.26 VI PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 61. The State raised a preliminary objection of “lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies,” arguing that the Court must reject the application in the instant case in limine because: a) the rule of international law regarding prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, recognized in the case law of international human rights courts, “is granted in the interest of the State” and seeks to give it the opportunity to remedy situations resorting to its own means before having to answer for them before international bodies, which also follows from the subsidiary nature of the international proceeding vis-à-vis the national systems to guarantee human rights in case there are no remedies available, or if the existing remedies are inadequate or ineffective. In its legislation, the State has effective and suitable remedies to address human rights violations, it has the instruments to attain the effects sought, and any person has access to them, to exercise said remedies and protect the situation of abridgment; b) this objection was raised in a timely manner during the early stages of the proceeding before the Court, and the latter is not subject to what the Commission decided regarding this point; c) in the instant case the habeas corpus remedy was applied and it was “duly complemented as it has been shown that at the time of its execution Sánchez had already been released by the Tenth Infantry Battalion;” 25 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez Case. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 115. 26 Cf. Las Palmeras Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 34; El Caracazo Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 62; and Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 4, para. 78.