41 was an ex-prisoner, […] he finds it difficult to work both psychologically and because of his hearing problems.” Based on the above, the representatives asked that the State be ordered to compensate the victim for this concept with the sum of US$3,750,000.00 [three million seven hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars]; this sum results from multiplying the said monthly amount by the 187 months during which the victim ceased receiving this amount, plus 18% annual interest. 145. The Commission stated that “Mr. Bayarri’s testimony, and also the expert reports of Dr. Garré and Dr. Quiroga, produced during the public hearing of the instant case, together with the expert opinions of Dr. Ziella and Dr. Tolcachier offered by the State, reveal the magnitude of the physical and psychological consequences suffered by Mr. Bayarri as a result of the events he endured.” 146. The State indicated that “[the victim] did not forward documentation that would confirm the income indicated […] such as receipts for the payment of national, provincial or municipal taxes, records of contributions to the National Social Security Administration, sales invoices or invoices for purchases issued by suppliers of the supposed business premises, balance sheets or bank records.” It also argued that “[the victim] has not even provided elements that authenticate the very existence of the automobile agency, Bernal Motor Cars, at the time of the reported facts.” The State asked the Court to reject the request for compensation for this item as unfounded. 147. The Court observes that, in his testimony, José Enrique Villasante stated that, “[s]ince I was a friend of Juan Carlos Bayarri’s father-in-law, who is now deceased, […] I had dealings with the Bayarri family, and went once to the automobile agency that the Bayarri family had on a corner, near Bernal station, in front of the railway lines […] and it was very important, because they had many expensive cars on sale, some of them expensive imported vehicles, and even collectibles; however, owing to what happened to the Bayarri, the business ‘declined entirely’ and, therefore, Juan José Bayarri, […] did not sell vehicles from his domicile either because he said that he had to see his lawyers and look after Juan Carlos and obtain his release.”137 The witness, Clotilde Elena Rodríguez, testified that Juan José Bayarri and his son, Juan Carlos, “[t]ogether had a very important automobile agency in the Bernal zone, a few blocks from the station and from the Bayarri’s house in calle Belgrano; [she had] visited this automobile agency [and] there were very valuable cars on show and for sale in the agency, some imported cars and even antique cars, although [she did] not recall the make because [she does] not know much about cars.”138 Lastly, the witness, Noemí Virginia Julia Martínez testified that she “worked in the automobile agency that the Bayarri family had in Avenida San Martín 742, on the corner of Cerrito 10, in Bernal, a few blocks from the train station.” The witness stated that “[t]here was a lot of movement in this agency, because they had cheap cars, but also some very expensive ones; they were all used cars, some of them imported and also antique cars that `Don Juan’ Bayarri had restored in the workshops of friends who were mechanics in order to sell them at a good price to collectors and/or individuals who look for this type of car; people even came from abroad to buy collectibles.” 139 148. As documentary evidence of the commercial activities of Mr. Bayarri, the representatives presented a certificate authorizing the use of the premises; a certified copy of the Minutes Book of the automobile agency, dated March 27, 1989, issued by the 137 Cf. statement provided by affidavit (merits file, tome V, folios 927 to 929). 138 Cf. statement provided by affidavit (merits file, tome V, folio 915). 139 Cf. statement provided by affidavit (merits file, tome V, folio 920).