8 15. The Court has assessed the arguments and evidence submitted by the InterAmerican Commission during the proceedings, as well as the arguments and statements provided by the representative and the State; it has convened a hearing and has requested the parties to submit useful information and documentation. On this basis, the Court will now deliver judgment. IV PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS 16. The Court deems it pertinent to refer to the applicability of Article 38(2) of the Rules of Procedure in the circumstances of this case, which was invoked by the Commission in its final written arguments. This provision establishes: In its answer, the respondent must state whether it accepts the facts and claims or whether it contradicts them, and the Court may consider accepted those facts that have not been expressly denied and the claims that have not been expressly contested. 17. In previous cases, the Court has considered that when the State does not answer the application specifically, the facts about which it is silent are presumed to be true, provided that conclusions may be drawn from the existing evidence that are consistent with them.34 Furthermore, in other cases the Court has observed: […] 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 case law has recognized that the absence of one of the parties at any stage of the case does not affect the validity of the judgment.35 18. It should be noted that, according to the American Convention and the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the application provides the factual framework of the proceedings 36 and United Nations, General Assembly, Economic and Social Council. Report on the situation of human rights in Haiti presented by the independent expert, Louis Joinet. A/HRC/4/3, 2 February 2007; United Nations, Security Council. Report of the Secretary General on the Haiti, S/2004/300, 16 April 2004; United Nations, Security Council, Resolution 1529 (2004), adopted on 29 February 2004; United Nations, Security Council, Resolution 1542 (2004), adopted on 30 April 2004. Within the allotted time, the representative and the Commission stated that they had no observations to make. 34 Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 138; Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, para. 37, and Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 67. 35 Cf. The Constitutional Court v. Perú. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, paras. 60 and 62; Case of Caesar supra note 34, para. 37; and Ivcher Bronstein v. Perú. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, paras. 80 and 82. See also, inter alia, International Court of Justice Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, para. 27; Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, para. 17; Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgment of 20 December 1974, I.C.J. Reports 1974, para. 15; Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), Judgment of 19 December 1978, I.C.J. Reports 1978, para. 15; and United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Teheran (United States of America v. Iran), Judgment of 24 May 1980, I.C.J. Reports 1980, para. 33. 36 Cf. The “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 59; the Saramaka People. v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, and Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 28.