40 Although the American Convention does not regulate this possibility, Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure is clear when it establishes that, should a party fail to appear, the Court shall, on its own motion, complete the consideration of the case; b) faced with the inexistence of a precedent in the inter-American system, we can take into consideration the provisions of article 53(1) and 53(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, which provides that whenever one of the parties does not appear before the Court or cannot defend its case, “the other party may request [the Court] to decide in favor of its application” and the jurisdictional organ must evaluate if this has sufficient grounds, de jure and de facto, in order to declare it admissible; and c) in order to decide if an application has legal merits, the Court is not restricted to the arguments of the parties, and the absence of one of them has fewer repercussions for the resolution of the case. Since the Court knows the law and is not restricted to the legal arguments of the parties, the State’s failure to appear does not affect the Court’s capacity to determine the legal merits of the application. In this hypothesis, it would be more difficult to decide if the application is admissible with regard to the facts, because the definition of these may depend on the parties. However, in the case sub judice neither the facts nor the law are contested. * 79. * * Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court establish that 1. When a party fails to appear in or continue with a case, the Court shall, on its own motion, take such measures as may be necessary to complete the consideration of the case. 2. When a party enters a case at a later stage of the proceedings, it shall take up the proceedings at that stage. 80. This Court observes that the appearance of the parties to the proceeding is a procedural duty and not a legal obligation, because the failure of the parties to take part in the proceedings does not result in any precise sanction against this omission, nor does it affect the evolution of the proceeding, but rather it could produce a prejudice for the party that decides not to exercise fully his right to defend himself or to perform the procedural actions that are in his interest, in accordance with the principle audi alteram partem73. 81. With regard to the arguments presented by the Commission, it is sufficient to say that the Court has brought the case to a completion, on its own motion, and has evaluated the pool of evidence and the arguments submitted during the proceedings and, on this basis, the Court exercises its jurisdictional functions and delivers judgment74. 73 Cf. Constitutional Court case, supra note 8, para. 60. 74 Cf. Constitutional Court case, supra note 8; para. 61.