67 Arguments of the Commission 156. The Commission indicated that the alleged victim would specify her claims regarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Arguments of the victim’s representatives 157. The victim’s representatives requested the Court to determine reparation for the non-pecuniary damage inflicted, bearing in mind the following aspects: a) With regard to “non-pecuniary damage,” during her detention, the alleged victim was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; and the lives of her next of kin have been affected owing to the violations she suffered. It is not necessary to prove “non-pecuniary damage” in relation to the children or the parents of victims; in the case of siblings, the closeness of the relationship and the affection among them should be taken into account, so that the victim’s sister, Alcira Isabel De La Cruz Flores, who personally assumed the responsibility for trying to obtain her release merits special attention; b) Consequently, compensation for “non-pecuniary damage” is justified, in the amount of US$110,000.00 (one hundred and ten thousand United States dollars), distributed as follows US$15,000.00 (fifteen thousand United States dollars) for the victim’s children, Danilo and Ana Teresa Blanco De La Cruz; US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) for the victim’s mother, Alcira Domitila Flores Rosas widow of De La Cruz and for the victim’s sister, Alcira Isabel De La Cruz Flores; US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) for the siblings Celso Fernando and Jorge Alfonso De La Cruz Flores; and US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars) for the victim, María Teresa De La Cruz Flores; c) Regarding damage to health, due to the deterioration in the victim’s health as a result of the violations that have been decided, the State must grant adequate reparation for the damage to her physical and psychological health that will allow the victim to rehabilitate herself; consequently, it must provide medical treatment, and also medical and psychological treatment for the victim’s next of kin; and d) Regarding damage to her life plan, the victim’s detention resulted in the impairment of personal and professional opportunities. The reconstruction of her life plan is closely tied to her reincorporation into her place of work and her professional updating. Given that immediately after obtaining her liberty, the victim will not be able to return to work, she should be granted a paid leave of absence for one year, and also updating courses in her field of specialization that will allow her to reincorporate her work in acceptable competitive conditions. Arguments of the State 158. The State did not refer to the claims of the Commission and the victim’s representatives regarding non-pecuniary damage, or any reparations the Court might order for this concept.