13. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case in accordance with Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Haiti has been a State Party to the American Convention since September 27, 1977, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on March 20, 1998. V PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS A. The failure of the State to appear in the proceedings before the Court 14. Haiti failed to appear at any stage of the proceedings before the Court. In previous cases, the Court has considered that when a State does not specifically answer the application, the facts of the case regarding which it has remained silent are presumed to be true, provided that conclusions can be reached from the existing evidence that are consistent with those facts.7 Hence, the Court has observed: […] that procedural inactivity does not give rise to a specific sanction against the parties, stricto sensu, nor does it affect the evolution of the proceedings; rather, it may eventually prejudice them if they decide voluntarily not to exercise fully their right to defense and not to execute procedural actions in their own interest, in accordance with the audi alteram partem principle. […] International jurisprudence has recognized that the absence of one of the parties at any stage of the case does not affect the validity of the judgment.8 15. It should be noted that the application constitutes the factual proceedings9 and delimits the legal arguments and the claims for procedural inactivity of the defendant State means that it is unable question, as appropriate, the facts and claims set out in the application, and motions brief.11 framework for the reparations.10 The to complement or or in the pleadings 16. According to Article 39(2) of the Rules of Procedure,12 the Court is empowered to consider accepted the facts that have not been expressly denied and the claims that have not been expressly contested. Evidently, the Court is not obliged to do this in all the cases 7 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 138, and Case of Yvon Nepture v. Haiti. Reparations and costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 37. 8 Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, paras. 60 and 62, and Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti, supra note 7, para. 17. See also, inter alia, International Court of Justice, Compétence en matière d’Activités militaires et paramilitaires au Nicaragua et contre celui-ci (Nicaragua c. États-Unis d'Amérique), Fond, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 23, para. 27; Compétence en matière de pêcheries (Royaume-Uni c. Islande), Fond, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1974, p. 9, para. 17; Essais nucléaires (Australie c. France), Arrêt du 20 décembre 1974, C.I.J. Recueil 1974, p. 257, para. 15 ; Plateau continental de la mer Egée (Grèce c. Turquie), Arrêt du 19 décembre 1978, C.I.J. Recueil 1978, p. 7, para. 15, and Personnel diplomatique et consulaire des Etats-Unis à Téhéran (Etats-Unis d'Amérique c. Iran), Arrêt du 24 mai 1980, C.I.J. Recueil 1980, p. 18, para. 33. 9 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits Reparations and costas. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 36. 10 Cf. Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti, supra note 7, para. 18, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 33. 11 Cf. Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti, supra note 7, para. 18 12 “In its answer, the defendant must state whether it accepts the facts and claims or whether it denies them, and the Court may consider accepted those facts that have not been expressly denied and the claims that have not been expressly contested.” 7