43 154. In this regard, the expert opinion presented by the psychologist Quiroga established that “Juan Carlos Bayarri was totally unable to work as a result of cognitive-intellectual, affective, decision-making and behavioral deterioration, resulting from the traumatic events he suffered [and is not] in any condition to return to the business activities that he carried out with his father (the sale of used cars) before the catastrophic events that affected him as of November 1991.” She also indicated that, for reasons “of an individual nature, owing to his notable distrust of other people, and of a social nature, owing to his situation as an ex-prisoner and as a person who was libeled by the press for many years, Juan Carlos Bayarri is unable to enter into a solid commercial-social-labor relationship or the other relationships required in order to function in various essential areas.”142 155. The Court finds it appropriate to establish the sum of US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars) for the psychological problems that affect the victim’s ability to work. 156. In addition, the representatives asked that, as a result of the confiscation of the money Mr. Bayarri had with him when he was deprived of liberty, and the money at his domicile when the search was carried out, the State be ordered to pay the victim the sum of US$2,113.00 (two thousand one hundred and thirteen United States dollars) which, with an annual interest rate of 18% adds up to US$57,051.00 (fifty-seven thousand and fifty-one United States dollars).” 157. The State argued that the victim had not attached to his pleadings and motions brief either the receipt for his personal effects that had been issued when he was detained by the Federal Police, or the official record of the search at his domicile. It added that “[the victim] has not forwarded any element authenticating that these amounts were not returned to him [and] he did not forward documentation certifying that he had made the corresponding complaints requesting the presumed restitution of the amounts that he is claiming […].” Lastly, the State indicated that the 18% annual interest rate was applied “without providing […] the least justification of the international legal and juridical criteria that would support this adjustment of the amounts claimed under the heading of compensation.” The State asked the Court to reject the request for patrimonial damage as unfounded. 158. The Court observes, that based on the evidence submitted, in the context of the proceedings against Mr. Bayarri, his domicile was searched on November 21, 1991, and US$1,013.00 [one thousand and thirteen United States dollars] and 4,500,000 [four million five hundred thousand] australes were indeed seized.143 In addition, the body of evidence shows that, when the victim was detained by the Federal Police, 6,303,800 australes were confiscated from him.144 The Court reiterates that mere possession establishes a presumption of ownership in favor of the possessor and, in the case of movables, it is equal to ownership.145 Taking into account that the victim was detained in its custody, the State has not proved that it actually returned the amounts indicated by the representatives, which it was obliged to, once the victim was acquitted of all responsibility in the said criminal action or, previously, when it was shown that the money seized bore no relationship to the offense investigated. 142 Cf. written expert appraisal provided by Dr. Susana E. Quiroga, psychologist (merits file, tome V, folio 1000-9). 143 Cf. copy authenticated by notary public of the record of the search of Mr. Bayarri’s domicile on November 21, 1991 (file of attachments to application, appendix 3. tome VIII (2) folio 3303); and accusation submitted by the National Federal Criminal and Correctional Prosecutor responsible for the No. 4 Prosecutor’s Office, of December 20, 1994 (helpful evidence submitted by the State, exp.7176cuerpo20_92, page 162). 144 Cf. official record of deposit of personal effects of November 19, 1991 (helpful evidence submitted by the State, exp7176cuerpo_2, page 228). 145 Cf. case of Tibi, supra note 51, para. 218.