clandestine logging in the Petatlán hills,” the State argued that “the witness does not provide any grounds whatsoever for his assertions.” Moreover, the State pointed out that the “witness recognizes that he was not directly involved in the events of this case and that the advice provided by Greenpeace to the alleged victims began a long time afterwards,” for which reason the State asked the Court to take into account only those statements exclusively related to the period when “the witness was [directly] involved in the case.” With regard to these aspects, the Court considers that they do not compromise the admissibility of this witness statement, given that the State itself acknowledges the witness’ involvement in this case. The scope of his statement shall be assessed, if applicable, together with the rest of the body of evidence, taking into account the State’s comments and the object of the litigation. 43. The Court notes that the State objected to some of the testimonies, mainly because the witnesses refer to facts that were seemingly outside the scope of this case, or because there would be evidence against their affirmations. Since these observations refer to the merits of the dispute, the Court shall assess, in the appropriate chapter of the Judgment, the content of the witness statements, insofar as these refer to the object duly specified by the President of the Court in this case (supra para. 8), taking into account the body of evidence, the observations of the State and the rules of sound judgment. 44. As to the expert reports, in relation to Mr. Tramsen’s report, the State argued that it was not admissible to require it, since it had already been assessed by various judicial bodies, in decisions which were not appealed by the representatives of the petitioners; that this would imply a review of the proceedings conducted by the national judicial authorities, and that it lacks a methodology, among other arguments about its shortcomings. The Court emphasizes that the State reiterated arguments on the admissibility of the report which have already been decided by the Court in its decision to reject the request to reconsider the matter (supra para. 26(3)). Consequently, the Court has already ruled on the controversy about the admissibility of the report and shall assess the other arguments against this evidence when deciding on the merits of the case. 45. Regarding Mr. Carbonell’s expert report, the State pointed out that “it was prepared for another case” which “has no relation whatsoever with this case.” According to the State, “this practice encourages the unnecessary repetition of arguments,” and therefore it requested that the evidence of this expert be rejected “since it had not been prepared specifically for this case and, therefore, it does not have the specificity required in an expert witness’ report.” Furthermore, the State asked the Court not to consider the report “since the statements included therein have already been evaluated in extenso” in the case of Radilla Pacheco. In this regard, the Court notes that such arguments do not prevent the admissibility of the report and in examining the merits of the case, shall determine to what extent this opinion is pertinent in resolving some aspects of the dispute. 46. As regards Mr. Castresana’s expert opinion, the State indicated that “the statements made by the deponent in Chapter VIII of his brief are not only clearly outside the objective for which his opinion was requested, but show that the document is biased and that it lacks objectivity;” for this reason, the State asked the Court to reject these statements. It added that “the expert witness maliciously introduced his point of view into the reports issued by the United Nations Committee on Torture” and, therefore, “they do not adhere to the object of his statement, invalidating it even further.” As regards the expert witness Piñeyro, the State indicated that “in his expert report he makes statements that are groundless […], making generalizations that show serious lack of objectivity” and that “the expert witness makes serious charges against the Armed Forces which are also unfounded, since they are not supported by any evidence.” Regarding the expert report of Mr. López Portillo Vargas, the State pointed out that “his opinion is false” 19