compensation and to make integral reparation, the payment of the following sums for nonpecuniary damage: (a) US$100,000.00 for Rumaldo Pacheco; (b) US$100,000.00 for Fredesvinda Tineo, and (c) US$70,000.00 each for Frida Edith, Juana Guadalupe and Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo. 279. They also indicated that the events experienced by the Pacheco Tineo family and the consequences of the facts that violated their human rights caused by the State of Bolivia curtailed their “legitimate expectations and hopes of exercising the profession of psychologist, for which they had prepared and projected their future family life and as a means of earning a decent life for themselves and for their children.294 Consequently, the representatives asked the Court to order the payment of compensation for harm to the life project of Juan Rumaldo Pacheco and Fredesvinda Tineo, consisting in the sum of US$70,000.00 each. 280. Regarding the harm to the life project, the State indicated: (a) that Bolivia had no influence on the professional and labor market of Chile and Peru; (b) that it had not been proved that the Bolivian authorities took the professional diplomas, and doctoral thesis files, references and back-up copies of the presumed victims; (c) that the State had not interfered or curtailed the course of the life project of the presumed victims; (d) that the presumed victims had only presented evidence of Mr. Pacheco’s unfinished master’s degree, and (e) that the presumed victims had not mentioned the name of the university at which they had been studying for their doctorates. Therefore, the State concluded that the presumed victims’ assertions had not been proved conclusively. 281. Furthermore, regarding non-pecuniary damage, the State indicated that the events that took place from February 20 to 24, 2001, could not have caused major emotional suffering to the presumed victims because they had entered Bolivia illegally and this denoted a prior anxiety, anguish and uncertainty owing to their irregular situation in that country. The State also argued that it was not possible to allege frustrations owing to the failure to grant them refugee status because, as indicated by the presumed victims, the request presented with the CEB-UNHCR project was a means of defense in relation to the detention of Fredesvinda. Also, the State affirmed that “the word ‘expelled’ does not constitute an epithet, but is a legal status established by national and international asylum law” and that the fact that the children had to accompany their parents at the prison in Peru could not be attributed to Bolivia, because those facts had taken place in Peru. In addition, the State indicated that it could not be held responsible for the psychological problems of the children of the Pacheco Tineo family because, in order to determine the cause of a problem of this type, a psychological diagnosis by professionals outside the family unit was required to ascertain the emotional problems of both the individual and the family group. 282. In addition, the State indicated: (a) regarding the cause of Frida Edith’s physical problems, that these were not the result of an emotional trauma or crisis, but other sources of infection; (b) that the physical, emotional and psychological problems and traumas that Fredesvinda suffers are due to her experiences during her detention and imprisonment in Peru; (c) that the traumatic experiences and setbacks suffered by Rumaldo took place before the facts that occurred between February 20 and 24 in Bolivia, and (d) regarding the evaluation of Juan Ricardo and Juana Guadalupe, the State considered that this had not been made by a competent professional in mental health accredited to prepare psychological diagnoses and, therefore, it did not accept the corresponding medical/psychological certifications as valid evidence. 294 The representatives clarified that this harm “creates prejudices in both social and spiritual outreach”; “its effects extend to the labor market, an area in which there is also resistance”; to which is added “the impossibility of completing their doctoral theses.” They added that this had “crosscut the personal, employment, social, professional, family and financial spheres,” as a result of facts that prevented the materialization of the “desire for self-fulfillment, the development of their vocations and aptitudes, of their aspirations and potential, in the different areas described.” 82