53 243. The Commission stated that the victims had taken a series of measures in the domestic sphere to obtain the return of their property. The Court considers that this allegation will be assessed in the chapter corresponding to costs and expenses. 244. Based on the expert appraisal of Kuri González, the representatives requested that Mr. Chaparro should be awarded the sum of US$12,000.00 (twelve thousand United States dollars) for the alleged loss of a “share” and “membership” in the “Salinas Yacht Club,” and US$14,500.00 (fourteen thousand five hundred United States dollars) for the alleged loss of a “share” and “membership” in the “La Costa Country Club.” The State did not dispute the foregoing, or contest the expert appraisal of Kuri González. Despite this, the Court observes that the representatives did not indicate what relation these alleged losses have with the facts of the instant case and does not find them reasonable. Hence, it decides that it is not appropriate to grant compensation for these concepts. 245. Lastly, based on the expert appraisal of Kuri González, the representatives requested the sum of US$114,000.00 (one hundred and fourteen thousand United States dollars) for “lease of the company to third persons.” In this regard, when declaring the violation of Article 21 of the Convention, the Court found it proved that the State had leased the Plumavit factory to a private individual, thereby obtaining US$26,588.54 (twenty-six thousand five hundred and eight-eight United States dollars and fifty-four cents). Also, when declaring the violation of Article 21, the Court considered it incompatible with the Convention that the State had collected administration fees and the percentage for CONSEP charges (supra para. 195), amounting to US$16,143.77 (sixteen thousand one hundred and forty-three United States dollars and seventy-seven cents). Consequently, the Court decides that the State must reimburse Mr. Chaparro the amount he was charged for CONSEP administration fees and charges, that is US$16,143.77 (sixteen thousand one hundred and forty-three United States dollars and seventy-seven cents), together with the corresponding interest at the banking interest rate on arrears in Ecuador. The amount established by the Court and the respective interest must be delivered to Mr. Chaparro within one year of notification of this judgment at the latest. d) Non-pecuniary damage 246. The Court must now determine the reparations for non-pecuniary damage, as it has understood this in its case law.168 247. The Commission considered that “the victims have experienced intense psychological suffering, anguish, uncertainty, grief, and changes in their life projects owing to the lack of justice within a reasonable time, and as regards all those involved in the facts that gave rise to the instant case.” The representatives requested that the State compensate the victims for the non-pecuniary damage suffered with the sum of US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars) each. 248. During the public hearing before this Court, Mr. Chaparro stated that: My life changed […] because these trials for drug-trafficking […] leave a stigma […] indeed […] when I was able to extricate myself from this affair only one friend […] offered me work. […] I lost the source of my income; at that time I had three children studying at the University. The two older children had to pay for the studies of the two younger ones. My mother-in-law had to continue paying my household expenses […]. In practice, the family broke up as of that time […]. I have had to have psychiatric and psychological treatment since then; my wife also. [In 168 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 57; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 20, para. 175 and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 13, para. 141.