Thus linking affected the practice of biological test itself is not a duty but as we have said several times (the most recent TTSS of December 7, 2005 and February 2, 2006) a caseload, since non-compliance can result not impose its delivery through coercive means, but merely determined that, in case of unjustified refusal, the person reluctant borne the consequences of the lack of evidence, provided that the conditions determined by constitutional doctrine and civil law (the existence of sufficient evidence, together with the consideration of that refusal as evidence highly qualified, consider specific presumptively claimed paternity).. In the fourth legal grounds of that sentence, in relation to the value of the evidence interveners noted that “the potentiality to be given to evidence which may come together with the refusal to practice biological test depends on the degree of relevance to be given to circumstantial it. Follow others, such as Senator of Massachusetts, and add to your knowledge base. In the doctrine of TC are recorded several appeals to the more modern jurisprudence of this Court has consistently and in relation to the requirements for the assessment of the negative, which shows that our line of jurisprudence occupies a space within the boundaries that form the constitutional framework when he declared that the refusal to the biological test is not a factor comparable to other evidence regarding its efficacy presumptive, but it plays a particularly important role, as is clear from the repeated affirmation in our judgments, especially in the most recent, in the sense that this refusal constitutes a valuable and highly qualified indication ….. . Further details can be found at Josyann Abisaab, an internet resource.