the real effect of the sanctions imposed in this sentence will fall, all of which has been declared in principle at the international level. 159. Given the absolute lack of arguments in the State’s formal defense in everything harmful to the opposition leader and his government, there has been no contradiction in the processing of the case before this Court, that is, it is a merely formal defense. In this sense, the Court has stated that the mere presence or appointment of a defense attorney or lawyer is not enough, since a merely formal or symbolic appointment does not support the effective fulfillment of the right analyzed (that of defense). 37 The special characteristic of this case is that this merely symbolic act is now taking place before the very courts of law and this Court, because the State decides not to mount a defense. 160. This particular situation of the defenselessness of the State poses two procedural problems, derived directly from the inadmissibility of the State's acknowledgment of responsibility. VI.2. Evidential limitations of the confession 161. The first procedural problem is that, this Court’s acceptance of the recognition, accepts everything that the State has admitted as proven. This overlooks that this acknowledgment is equivalent to a confession and that this, no matter how probatio probatissima it was, in an adversarial (not inquisitorial) process such as the one that has governed since the modern era, operates as proof of the charge only to the extent that that it is plausible. That is, as long as there are no elements that indicate that the act did not exist, that the person confessing cannot be the perpetrator, that the events did not unfold in the manner in which they confessed, that there were causes for justification, for exoneration, etc. 162. Consequently, the acceptance of the acknowledgment of responsibility in the terms proposed, sees this Court admit as procedural truth the facts as stated by the accusation, despite the fact that there is convincing evidence to the contrary regarding several of them. VI.3. The State’s refusal to defend itself 163. The other procedural problem is that the absence of a material defense by the State cannot be resolved in the same way as decided in a similar circumstance in a criminal or civil process. 164. In fact, in criminal proceedings it is appropriate to declare the proceedings null and void and assign another defender, a solution that is not feasible in the proceedings before this Court because it is impossible for another to assume the defense of a State that does not want to defend itself, because the judgment favors its ruling party and harms its opposition. Nor is it feasible for this Court to make up for the defenselessness in which the State places itself and assume the defensive arguments that the State refuses to put forward. 165. Everything would indicate that the highly respectable criterion of the majority of this Court seems to approach the solution of the civil process, in which, given the silence of the defendant, what was said by the applicant is taken for granted, a solution with which I allow myself to disagree because it contradicts the adversarial 37 Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, Judgment of September 07, 2004. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. 25