34. Likewise, during the course of the public hearing, expert witness Coronado Franco and expert witness Gutiérrez Hernández submitted their opinions in writing. 35 In addition, expert witness Gutiérrez Hernández presented attachments to her expert report. For their part, expert witnesses Tramsen and Gutiérrez Hernández submitted PowerPoint presentations supporting the statements made during the hearing. 36 These documents were distributed to the parties. The Court admits such documents insofar as they refer to the purpose duly defined, because they are complementary and are within the parameters of time and form of the object for which they were requested. 35. In addition, both the State and the representatives submitted documents with their final written arguments. Some of these responded to questions asked by the Court as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra para. 10), and are therefore included in the body of evidence, together with the observations made by the parties thereto. For their part, the representatives submitted, among other documents, vouchers of expenses incurred after filing their brief of pleadings and motions. Such evidence was subjected to the State’s observations and its admissibility was not rejected; therefore, it is included in the file. 36. The representatives indicated that one of the attachments presented by the State with its final written arguments, an “identification card” of the doctors Christian Tramsen and Morris Tidball Binz, was submitted “extemporaneously.” In this respect, the Court admits such evidence considering that it is useful and will assess it together with the rest of the body of evidence, particularly when examining the State’s various arguments in relation to Mr. Tramsen’s expert opinion. 3. Assessment of statements by the alleged victims, and of the testimonial and expert evidence 37. As to the statements of the alleged victims, witnesses and expert opinions rendered at the public hearing and by means of affidavits, the Court considers these relevant to the extent they relate to the object defined by the President of the Court in the Order requiring them (supra para. 8), together with other items of the body of evidence, taking into account the observations made by the parties. 37 38. With respect to the statements of the alleged victims, the State noted in general terms, that the witnesses Cabrera García, Olivar López and Cortés Salgado rendered “numerous and considerable contradictory statements, and even additional statements, not only about the alleged acts of torture against the petitioners but also in relation to the facts mentioned by the representatives.” As regards the witness Montiel Flores, the State also alleged that there seemed to be numerous contradictions in his statement. Therefore, in examining the merits of the case, the Court shall consider whether the statements made by these witnesses are based on evidence. 39. According to this Court’s case law, given that the alleged victims have a direct interest in the case, their statements cannot be assessed separately but 35 Cf. Record of receipt of documents of August 27, 2010 for the public hearing held in this case (Merits file, volume IV; pages 1667 and 1668). 36 Cf. Record of receipt of documents of August 27, 2010, supra note 35, pages 1667 and 1668. 37 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C. Nº 33, para. 43; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 50; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 47. 17