and that “the country has the necessary oversight standards to sanction and punish any abuse by any authority, even by the Armed Forces in security tasks.” 47. As regards the expert opinions of Mrs. Deutsch and Mr. Quiroga, the State presented several arguments on the methodology used, and on the alleged deficiencies and errors made, among other issues, in order to discredit their evidentiary value. 48. With respect to the arguments concerning the methodology used by the expert witnesses and other deficiencies, the Court considers it pertinent to point out that, unlike witnesses, who must avoid giving personal opinions, expert witnesses may offer technical or personal opinions provided these are related to their special knowledge or experience. In addition, expert witnesses may refer both to specific aspects of the proceedings or to any other relevant subject of the litigation, provided that they limit themselves to the object for which they were summoned 39 and their conclusions are sufficiently substantiated. First of all, the Court notes that the expert opinions refer to the object for which they were ordered (supra paras. 25 and 26). Also, with regard to the expert opinions of Messrs. Castresana, López Portillo, Piñeyro, Quiroga and Mrs. Deutsch, the Court notes that Mexico’s observations refer to the merits of the case and to the evidentiary value of their opinions, matters that shall be considered, if applicable, in the corresponding chapters of the Judgment, within the specific framework of the object for which they were required, taking into account the State’s comments. 4. Considerations regarding the alleged “supervening evidence” 49. On May 28, 2010 the representatives submitted three documents as supervening evidence: the Final Observations issued on April 7, 2010 by the Committee on Human Rights regarding the report submitted by Mexico related to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 40 the Report issued on May 27, 2009 on the visit to Mexico by the Sub-Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 41 and a Resolution issued on March 24, 2010 by the Federal Institute for Access to Public Information, ordering the publication of the report by said Sub-Committee. 42 50. The State argued that these documents “have no connection whatsoever with the case at hand,” “nor do they provide any elements” to “facilitate adjudication of this international contentious proceeding.” The State further alleged that such reports do not include any statement “about the systematic and repeated practice of torture” in Mexico. Regarding the Final Observations of the Committee on Human Rights, the State pointed out that it does not make “reference to the case of Messrs.” Cabrera and Montiel “or to any other specific case.” Regarding the report by the Sub-Committee for the Prevention of Torture, the State argued that 39 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C N° 197, para. 42; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C N° 215; para. 61; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 68. 40 United Nations. Committee on Human Rights. Final Observations of the Committee on Human Rights. Evaluation of the reports presented by the States Parties in light of Article 40 of the Convention (Mexico). Doc. ONU CCPRlC/MEXlCO/5, April 7, 2010. 41 United Nations. Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture. Report on the visit to Mexico by the Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. Doc, ONU CAT/OP/MEXIR.1, May 27, 2009. 42 Federal Institute for Access to Public Information (IFAI). Petitioner: Edgar Cortez Morales. Institution before which it filed its request: Foreign Affairs Secretary. Request 0000500121909, Case file 5290/09. Ruling of session held on March 24, 2010. 20