35 give up the contract she had with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and another that she was about to conclude with the same Ministry, in order to devote herself to the victim’s defense. The Court finds that there is no proof to support either of these claims or their causal nexus to the wrongful acts perpetrated against the victim in the instant case. 132. The Court finds that the “lost income” and visits of Ms. Carolina LoayzaTamayo to the prison were representation-related expenses and will, therefore, examine their relevance when it deals with costs and expenses (infra 172). 133. Accordingly, the Court has decided to award US$49,190.30 (forty-nine thousand one hundred ninety United States dollars and thirty cents) to Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo as compensation for material damages, and US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) to each of her children for medical expenses. XI MORAL DAMAGES 134. In her reparations brief, the victim argued that moral damages were incurred by reason of her deprivation of freedom under subhuman conditions; separation from her children, parents and siblings; the inhumane, humiliating and degrading treatment she suffered during her detention and isolation, and when she was exhibited to the press as a "terrorist criminal." The victim maintained that the pain inflicted during the period of her incarceration endures in the form of the psychological consequences. She added that her children and other next of kin were directly affected by the abuse she suffered and were socially stigmatized. She added that her sister, Carolina Loayza-Tamayo, suffered this injury directly as she became the target of the State’s intimidation tactics and false accusations and was included on a list of attorneys under investigation. 135. The victim therefore requested that the Court order the State to pay the following compensation for moral damages: US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars) to her; US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) to her parents; US$15,000.00 (fifteen thousand United States dollars) to each of her children, and a lump sum of US$35,000.00 (thirty-five thousand United States dollars) for her siblings. 136. For its part, the Commission petitioned the Court to instruct Peru to pay fair compensation to the victim and to her next of kin, based on the amount indicated by the victim in her reparations brief. 137. The State maintained that to substantiate her claims for moral damages, the victim had used the same arguments she used to substantiate her claims for other heads of damages. It argued that in the proceedings into the merits, it was never proven that the victim had in fact been raped during her incarceration, or that she had been coerced into making self-incriminating statements, or that Peru had violated articles 8(2)(g) and 8(3) of the Convention. The State further maintained that in its Judgment on the merits, the Court had refrained from any pronouncement concerning the lack of independence and impartiality of the military courts. For these reasons, the State argued, the "alleged ‘moral damages’ being sought […] do not fit the facts"; and it maintained that this was even truer in the case of the damages being claimed for the victim’s next of kin.