3) Christian Tramsen, former adviser to Physicians for Human Rights – Denmark (PHR), who examined the alleged victims in July 2000 in order to determine whether they had been tortured; an expert witness presented by the representatives, who issued a technical opinion on the following aspects: i) the physical and psychological health of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel in July 2000; ii) “the link between the symptoms he found and the facts described by the [alleged] victims to the PHR doctors;” iii) the method used to perform the medical examination and how this method can allegedly detect torture one year after the alleged events occurred; iv) “the internationally accepted methodology followed in order to determine torture,” and v) “basic standards for the medical examination of detainees held under State jurisdiction in criminal proceedings, using these as a basis for analyzing the content of the medical certificates issued on the health status of Messrs. Montiel and Cabrera by State forensic doctors,” 32 and 4) Juana Ma. del Carmen Gutiérrez Hernández, official forensic physician at the Attorney General’s Office of Mexico, an expert witness presented by the State, who issued a technical forensic-medical opinion on the following medical assessments: i) the tests conducted on the alleged victims on the days following the events of this case; ii) the test used as a basis for releasing the alleged victims from prison, and iii) the test conducted by Physicians for Human Rights – Denmark, and the relationship between these medical tests and the criminal proceedings in this case. 2. Admission of Documentary Evidence 27. In this case, as in others, 33 the Court admits the evidentiary value of those documents that were forwarded by the parties at the appropriate procedural stage that were not disputed or challenged, and the authenticity of which was not questioned. As to the documents forwarded in response to the request for evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra para. 10), the Court incorporates these into the body of evidence, pursuant to the provisions of Article 47(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 28. Furthermore, the Court shall examine, in the first place, Mexico’s observations regarding certain documents submitted with the petition and with the brief of pleadings and motions and shall then rule on the documents that were 32 The State asked the Court to reconsider its President’s decision to summon Dr. Tramsen as an expert witness. The full Court rejected said request. In its request, the State objected to Dr. Tramsen for “having been a defender and person of trust” of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel and for indicating that “he neither knew nor represented the alleged victims before issuing his opinion […] at the domestic courts.” The State added that this attitude “calls into question the impartiality, objectivity and truthfulness with which the expert witness rendered his opinion.” In this respect, the Court noted that the State “did not indicate how Dr. Tramsen would have acted as defense counsel" nor “ did it present a document showing that he acted as a legal-technical support during the statements rendered before the prosecutors or judges or that he had filed judicial remedies or legal arguments about what happened.” The Court noted that “Mr. Tramsen is a physician” and that his “intervention as a physician does not seem to be related to a legal representation”; therefore, the lack of truthfulness alleged by the State is not admissible. As to the lack of objectivity, the Court agreed with the President that “the objectivity that an expert witness should presumably have, even at the domestic level, does not cease because he or she has rendered an expert opinion on another occasion”. Therefore, even though “the domestic courts may heard, reported and assessed that expert opinion prior to this Court hearing the case, this does not imply that said opinion is no longer an expert or objective one.” Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of August 23, 2010; dissenting opinion of Eduardo Vio Grossi, Judge. 33 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. supra note 25, para. 140; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico; supra note 30 and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 42. 15