12 Commission, that there is an irrebuttable presumption that if the State is silent, the decision should be favorable, as long as other evidence does not lead to a different conclusion. 45. In this regard, the President stated that the representatives of Mr. Suárez Rosero have the right to make that point in the hearing, and the Government of Ecuador has the right to submit its argument as part of the oral hearing [...The] Court will evaluate the argument of the Government of Ecuador at the appropriate time as part of the oral stage of the proceedings. [...] The Court has stated that the written stage of the proceedings has concluded and that the reparations brief of the respondent Government was not submitted during the time period. The Court finds that the oral argument has been duly presented during this hearing. The Court finds that thus it is appropriate, based on the Court’s Rules of Procedure, which permit that if a party fails to act at any time in the proceedings, the Court shall, on its own motion, take such measures as may be necessary to complete the consideration of the case. Moreover, the rules of the Court add that when a party enters a case at a later stage of the proceedings, it shall take up the proceedings at that stage. 46. The Court confirms the decision of its President. * * * 47. Moreover, during the hearing on reparations, the State made the following oral statement: the Ecuadorian State proposes fifty thousand American dollars (sic), as the amount of reparations that it considers covers all the categories of reparations cited by the petitioner including the moral damages caused to him and his family, as well as his loss of income during the time that he was detained, the payment of the remunerations that covers domestic expenses, and the professional honoraria of his lawyers and other professionals who assisted him during the proceedings and who helped improve his physical and psychological health [...] The State also broke down the amount offered and included, as general headings the payment of compensation, the loss of earnings of Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero, his moral damages, the injuries inflicted on Mrs. Margarita Ramadán Burbano and his daughter, the minor Micaela Suárez Ramadán, the payment of the costs and expenses of his attorneys, the expenses of his rehabilitation, medical and psychological treatment, and the payment of the driver and domestic help. 48. In this respect, Mr. Suárez Rosero, through his representatives, stated that the proposal of the State exclusively concerns the question of pecuniary damages and has not set forth any reparations that are not pecuniary in nature. Therefore, the victim considers it to be insufficient; [...] it can not be accepted [...]. 49. For its part, the Commission stated that the brief submitted by the representatives of the Illustrious Government of Ecuador is an appeasement [...]of the procedural reparations and compensation claims that are made in this stage. What it has recognized [...], is the loss of earnings, moral damages, damages to the family, the payment of honoraria and future expenses, minor payments,