as arbitrary and that originated a repeated infringement of the due process. 5. Repeatedly, since the judgment of Reparation in the case of Aloeboetoe et al. versus Suriname (Cfr. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention of Human Rights). Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 52; Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, paras. 168 and 169; and Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 244) the Court has constantly affirmed in its jurisprudence that it is proper of human nature that a person submitted to aggressions and humiliation experiments a moral damage, and evidence is not required to reach this conclusion. Also, based on the case of Loayza Tamayo versus Peru (Cfr. Case of Loayza Tamayo. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 57; Case of Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin, et al. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 169; Case of Maritza Utrrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 87; and Case of Caeser. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C. No. 123, para. 97), it has determined the violation of a person’s psychic integrity due to the consequences of the arrest regime and the conditions of the prisons, which are similar in all Latin America, and to which Mr. Acosta Calderón was surely exposed. 6. In my opinion, the Court, in this case, should have considered the possibility to determine if Mr. Acosta Calderón’s dignity was affected and if his psychic and moral integrated were violated, since it considers within its own judgment that this person was arbitrarily arrested, thus taking away his freedom, a natural condition of all human beings, and he was submitted to a process in which fundamental guarantees were violated. More than five years in prison must have caused Mr. Acosta Calderón pain, which must have resulted in a psychological and moral damage that does not need to be proved. The arbitrary arrest for such a long period of time should be enough to presume damage to his integrity and the resulting moral and psychic damage to a person. That is how the victim’s representatives understood it when in their brief of requests and arguments they stated the following: The Ecumenical Commission on Human Rights considers that under the same aforementioned principles, the Court must decide that submitting a person to an arbitrary arrest, to the deprivation of their judicial guarantees and the right to a due process, and to a judicial lack of protection under clear arbitrary conditions, necessarily produce moral suffering, without it being necessary to present evidence regarding said suffering since it results evident from human nature itself. In principle, it should be recognized, and the Honorable Court is so requested to issue a ruling, that all form