46 presented a “severe depressive distressing medical profile accompanied of [i]nsomnia, [p]aranoid ideas, voluntary reclusion […] with only the obsessive idea of her dismissal.” He also indicates that the victim suffered “memory disorders” and “anxiety symptoms.”183 180. The State indicated that this certificate “lacks the elements of form and merits to evidence her mental state.” According to the State the professional who issued it was not authorized “to evaluate the condition of her mental and emotional health, since he is [a] Geriatrician internal medicine specialist” and that “the clinical profiles described and the psychotherapeutic strategies recommended are not sufficiently well-founded or clear, in a manner such that would prove her mental health.” It added that “the conclusions on the causes of psychological symptoms […] do not adjust to current practices, since they do not derive from an evaluation on her mental health (carried out through a clinical interview, tests performed, the application of tests) but from observations derived, possibly from the clinical practice corresponding to his specialty.” Additionally, it held that another circumstance that makes the report less credible and unbiased is the fact that “there are objective elements that lead to the presumption of the existence of a friendship between the doctor that prepared the alleged Report and the citizen María Cristina Reverón Trujillo,” specifically, the evidence of the doctor’s name on the note of mourning published in the newspaper “El Universal” after the passing away of Mrs. Reverón Trujillo’s mother.184 181. In this sense, the Tribunal verified that the State is correct when it indicates that the professional, who issued the certificate, is a specialist in Internal Medicine and Geriatrics. The representatives did not forward a copy to the Tribunal of the curriculum of this doctor or any other evidence that would have allowed the Tribunal to know of the experience and knowledge the doctor had in the field of mental health. In what refers to the alleged lack of impartiality of the doctor, the Court points out that this professional is not acting as an expert, instead he only prepared a “certificate”. Therefore, it is a piece of documentary evidence, not from an expert, which shall be assessed with the rest of the body of evidence. In that sense, the Tribunal considers that the doctor’s statements shall be interpreted the same as those from a person who knows Mrs. Reverón Trujillo and who states that the facts of the present case had a certain emotional impact on her. 182. From the aforementioned (the victim’s statement and the medical certificate), the Court can only conclude that Mrs. Reverón Trujillo suffered due to the violations committed against her. The Tribunal cannot confirm the degree of this suffering and the physical and mental consequences it reached. 183. Based on all the above, the Tribunal decides to order, in equity, that the State pay the amount of US$ 30,000.00 (thirty thousand dollars of the United States of America) or its equivalent in the national currency, in the concept of compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The State shall pay this amount directly to Mrs. Reverón Trujillo within a one-year term computed as of the notification of the present Judgment. 4. Elimination of the punishment of dismissal from the file 183 Cf. certificate issued by Doctor Germán Balda C., undated (dossier of annexes to the final written arguments of the representatives, Volume III, annex 26, folio 3529). 184 Cf. note of mourning published in the newspaper “El Universal” on September 23, 2007 (dossier of annexes to the final written arguments of the State, Volume II, annex 23, folio 3770).