38 respect to United States currency, and life expectancy statistics for Venezuela (supra para. 35).18 C) PRESUMPTIONS 50. The Court will resort in the instant case to a set of presumptions that, for want of direct evidence, may be used because they are firmly rooted in what has been learned from experience, insofar as they are not weakened in this case by evidence to the contrary: a) the presumption according to which all persons who disappeared in a context of violent events and who have been missing for many years are considered dead; b) the presumption according to which all adults who receive income and have a family spend most of that income providing for the needs of its members; c) the presumption according to which the next of kin of a deceased person cover the costs of his or her funeral; d) the presumption according to which every person, from the time he or she attains majority, carries out productive activities and perceives, at least, an income equivalent to minimum legal wage in the country involved.19 The Court finds no reason to set aside this presumption even in cases where there is evidence that the victim performed only informal or unstable work or was unemployed at the time of the events-; and e) the presumption according to which violations of human rights and a situation of impunity regarding those violations cause grief, anguish and sadness, both to the victims and to their next of kin. D) ASSESSMENT AND USE OF THE EVIDENCE 51. In the instant case the State, as has been pointed out, acknowledged the facts set forth in the application –that is, the facts regarding the merits of the caseand recognized its responsibility in connection with them. The State unequivocally expressed this at the public hearing on the merits held on November 10, 1999, and in a subsequent brief, dated November 15, 2001. 52. By means of its September 18, 2000 and June 18 and 22, 2002 briefs, the State retracted from the statements mentioned in the previous paragraph, once 18 Cf. file with evidence on the Caracazo case, under the title “Evidence to facilitate adjudication, filed by the State of Venezuela (August 13, 2002 brief),”, at the Secretariat of the Court. 19 Cf. “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). May 26, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 77, para. 79; “White Van” Case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). May 25, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 76, para. 116; and Castillo Páez Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). November 27, 1998 Judgment. Series C No. 43, para. 75.