26 78. First, in relation to the photographs provided by the witness Rueda Curimania, the Court considers that the photographs numbered 1 and 2, as the witness explained, belong to an investigation of another case, and are therefore not admissible. On the other hand, the photographs numbered 3 to 8, are related to the facts of this case and were part of Mr. Rueda Curimania’s testimony at the public hearing, and are therefore admitted. Secondly, given that the book entitled “Special Forensic Team (EFE), Photographic Album of Garments: ‘Cabitos’ Case” is not related to the instant case, it will not be considered part of the evidence. Finally, the Court will admit said testimony insofar as it is in keeping with the purpose established in the order of the President of the Court of December 4, 2014 (supra para. 10). 79. In its final written arguments, the State submitted observations regarding the relevance, scope, content, veracity and credibility of the expert opinions prepared by Miryam Rivera Holguín, Gabriela Citroni, Ronald Gamarra, Alejandro Valencia Villa and Jose Pablo Baraybar. The Court notes that the observations regarding all the above expert opinions are related to their evidentiary weight and scope, but do not affect the admissibility of the evidence. 80. On the other hand, in its final written arguments, the State argued that “the statement [of Marcelina Guillen Riveros] should not be taken into account either,” since she was “not included” in the Commission’s Merits Report and therefore “cannot be considered as an alleged victim.” In addition, it held that the “psychological evaluation” made by Miryam Rivera Holguín of said person “should not be examined or evaluated by the Court,” given that the State “has requested that this person not be considered as an alleged victim.” The Court considers that the objections raised by the State with respect to the statement of Marcelina Guillen Riveros and the purpose of the expert opinion of Miryam Rivera Holguín are time-barred, and that said statements were admitted opportunely and their purpose was determined in the President’s order of December 4, 2014. 81. The Court deems it pertinent to admit the statements and opinions rendered at the public hearing and through statements provided by affidavit, as long as they are in keeping with the object defined by the President in the order that required them and the purpose of the instant case. 54 During the public hearing the expert witness José Pablo Baraybar do Carmo presented his written expert report, which was forwarded to the parties so that they could submit any observations deemed pertinent in their final written arguments. The Court finds that said document, which was not contested, refers to the object duly defined by its President for said expert opinion and is useful for the assessment of the disputes raised in this case; it is therefore admitted on the basis of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. C. Assessment of the evidence 82. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its consistent case law concerning evidence and its assessment, the Court will examine and assess the evidence admitted in the previous section (supra paras. 74 to 81). In doing so, it will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework, taking into account the entire body of evidence and all the arguments presented in the case. It will also assess the statements made by the alleged victims together with all the evidence in the proceedings, insofar as they may provide further information on the presumed violations and their consequences. 55 Cf. Case of Espinoza González v, Peru. Merits, supra, para. 45. Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 58. 54 55