rather in the context of the entire body of evidence in this proceeding, 38 since these are useful insofar as they provide more information on the alleged violations and their consequences. The Court notes that the State’s objections are intended to discredit the evidentiary value of the statements made by the alleged victims in these proceedings. Basically, it considers that such statements would show differences with the previous statements made under domestic law or rather, that two alleged victims did not witness certain facts to which they testify, or refer to facts that do not form part of the subject-matter of the case. The Court considers that such objections do not challenge the admissibility of such evidence but seek to question its evidentiary value. Based on the foregoing, the Court admits these statements, without prejudice to the fact that their evidentiary value may be considered solely with regard to matters pertaining to the specific object defined by the President of the Court (supra paras. 25 and 26). Therefore, the Court shall consider the body of evidence, the State’s observations and the rules of sound judgment. 40. As to the statement by witness Patrón Sánchez, the State pointed out that “the initial part of [his] statement” was “absolutely biased” since the witness made reference to “facts and circumstances that he himself admitted not knowing about.” Thus, the State asked the Court “to reject the entire statement.” Also, in relation to other comments made by the witness, the State, in general terms “merely submitted the case files to corroborate the falsehood of the witness’ statement;” the State further alleged that “these irregularities should have been pointed out in the brief of pleadings, motions and evidence, not as mere observations without any support or basis,” aside from the fact that “there are remedies in the judicial system to challenge the irregularities mentioned by the witness.” Accordingly, in examining the merits of the case, the Court will decide whether the statements made by this witness are based on evidence. At the same time, the Court recalls that an evaluation regarding biased or unbiased statements is not made in relation to the witnesses, in respect of whom it is appropriate to assess the evidentiary weight of their statements; this shall be done at the merits stage when assessing the statement together with the rest body of evidence. 41. As to the statement by the witness Valdovinos Ríos, the State pointed out that she “refers to facts that are unrelated to this case, specifically, to experiences that Mr. Felipe Arreaga allegedly had on dates before and after the detention” of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. For this reason, the State asked the Court to reject statements not related to the case. The State also pointed out that this witness “made several comments about various activities carried out by Mr. Felipe Arreaga and Messrs. Rodolfo Montiel and Teodoro Cabrera which she is not certain about of which she did not have any direct knowledge.” Furthermore, the State pointed out that Mrs. Valdovinos acknowledged that “her knowledge about the circumstances of the arrest” of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel “had been obtained by merely referential sources.” The State concluded that the statement of this witness “is considered extremely general and completely unfounded.” Therefore, the State asked the Court to “reject the statement by Mrs. Valdovinos regarding the current legal status” of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. Accordingly, in examining the merits of the case, the Court will decide whether the statements made by this witness are based on evidence. 42. With regard to the statement of the witness Magallón Larson, the State pointed out that “he made certain statements, not well documented, about deforestation levels in Mexico and, particularly, about the situation in the community of Petatlán.” As to the “alleged complicity by government authorities in 38 Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, supra note 37, para. 43; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 52; and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 47. 18