18 65. The Court finds that the moral damages inflicted on Mr. Suárez Rosero are evident, for it is characteristic of human nature that anyone subjected to the kind of aggression and abuse that have been proved, experiences moral suffering. The Court holds that no evidence is required to arrive at this finding. (Loayza Tamayo Case, supra 40, para. 138) 66. Likewise, the Court finds that given the existence of grave violations to the detriment of Mr. Suárez Rosero, it must be presumed that they had an effect on Mrs. Ramadán Burbano and his daughter, given the specific facts of this case. 67. Taking into account the particular circumstances of the case and the decisions on moral damages in other similar cases (inter alia Neira Alegría et al. Case (Reparations) supra 40, para. 58; Caballero Delgado and Santana Case (Reparations), supra 40, para. 50, and Loayza Tamayo Case (Reparations), supra 40, para. 139), the Court finds it equitable to award compensation for moral damages in the amount of US$ 20,000.00 (twenty thousand dollars of the United States of America) to Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero, the amount of US$ 20,000.00 (twenty thousand dollars of the United States of America) to Mrs. Margarita Ramadán Burbano, and the amount of US$ 10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars of the United States of America) to the minor Micaela Suárez Ramadán. X OTHER FORMS OF REPARATIONS 68. Mr. Suárez Rosero requested in his reparations brief and in the public hearing that the State apologize to him and his family and that ‘it make an official statement or arrive at a judicial decision that would restore his dignity, reputation, and legal rights.” For its part, the Commission asked the Court to order the State to apologize to Mr. Suárez Rosero for the acts and omissions of the Ecuadorian authorities against him. 69. In the public hearing, Mr. Suárez Rosero submitted as expert evidence the statement of his therapist, who stated that the solution to overcoming the psychological problems of Mr. Suárez Rosero and the suffering that his entire family still experienced “is an admission on behalf of the State, a clearing of his name, a restoration of his dignity,” and that this admission is “an indispensable, irreplaceable necessity.” 70. Moreover, Mr. Suárez Rosero stated that the Ecuadorian Courts have not ruled on the appeal of his conviction, even though the respective time period established by law for this purpose has expired. 71. During the public hearing, the State argued that it had complied with the obligations set by the Court in its judgment on the merits of this case, that it has cooperated in other cases against it, and that it has fulfilled its obligation with the improvement of the general standards of human rights. With respect to the request of Mr. Suárez Rosero and the Commission that it apologize to him, the State commented that its presentation before the Court during this stage is a public expression of its recognition of the judgment rendered in favor of Mr. Suárez Rosero,