8 […] that procedural inactivity does not give rise to a specific sanction against the parties, nor does it affect the development of the proceeding; but, it may eventually prejudice them, if they take the decision not to exercise fully their right to defense or to execute the appropriate procedural actions that are in their interests, 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 therefore, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the Convention, Peru’s obligation to comply with this Court’s judgment in this case is in force.9 38. Pursuant to Article 38(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court is authorized to consider as established those facts that have not been expressly denied and those claims that have not been expressly contested; nevertheless, as master of its own jurisdiction (supra para. 8 and 11) and in exercise of the authority granted by Article 55 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court is at liberty to assess the facts, alone or in conjunction with other elements from the evidence available. It remains the case that the State’s inactivity before an international human rights tribunal not only may eventually work to its detriment but is contrary to the object, purpose and spirit of the American Convention and of the collective enforcement mechanism enshrined therein. 39. It should be emphasized that in this case the State failed to discharge its procedural responsibility to submit evidence in the course of the procedural stages set out in Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure (supra para. 24). In consequence, the Court deems it appropriate to establish the proven facts of the instant case, taking into account, in addition to the aforementioned silence of the State, other elements that may assist it in establishing the truth of the facts, exercising its responsibility to protect human rights and applying, to this end, the pertinent provisions of the American Convention and of general international law. VI EVIDENCE 40. Before turning to the analysis of the evidence received, in this chapter the Court, pursuant to articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, will make reference to certain general considerations applicable to the specific case, the majority of which have been previously expounded in the jurisprudence of this Tribunal. 41. The principle of the presence of parties to a dispute applies to evidentiary matters, and it involves respecting the parties’ right to defense. This principle is contained in article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, regarding the opportunity in which 8 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 23, para. 27. See also, Cf., inter alia, Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 7, para. 12; Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 9, para.17; Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgment of 20 December 1974, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 257, para. 15; Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1978, p. 7, para. 15; and United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 18, para. 33. 9 Cf. Ivcher Bronstein Case. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, paras. 80 and 82; and Constitutional Court Case. Judgment of January 31, 2001, Series C No. 71, paras. 60 to 62.