32 practicing his profession, and partial disability (65 percent) which prevents him from taking up a different occupation. To put it differently, as a result of the facts of the instant case, Mr. Bueno-Alves was, is, and will continue to be unable to practice his trade as a marble craftsman, and he can only engage –to a very limited extent– in a different occupation. 157. In the Court’s opinion, as a general rule, the State must consider the victim in the condition the victim was in prior to the occurrence of the injurious events. Where a given act by the State further aggravates a preexisting condition or even causes the victim’s death, the State is responsible for all the consequences, as they would not have existed had it not been for the State’s action. 158. In the instant case, even though Mr. Bueno-Alves had, in fact, preexisting personality disorders, these did not keep him from practicing his profession, and “he functioned in a balanced manner.” Indeed, as stated in the previous paragraphs, he was a well-reputed craftsman. It is as a consequence of the torture inflicted upon him, a fact subsequently aggravated by the denial of justice, that the victim suffered a “breakdown [,] disrupting his fragile personality structure [and] generating a new mental condition on the base structure.” 159. In light of the above, the Court will hold the State responsible for Mr. Bueno-Alves’ work disability. iii) Mitigation of damage 160. The State raised two arguments regarding the courses of action the victim could have taken to minimize the damage. The first argument holds that “domestic mechanisms aimed at mitigating his suffering were available […]” to the victim. Specifically, he could have requested disability benefits to Argentina’s Ministry of Social Welfare, under [L]aw [No.] 18.910/70.” The second argument rests on the fact that the victim did not seek professional help for his preexisting personality disorders or professional treatment after the torture. 161. Regarding the first argument, the Court has noted that the State itself stated that, in order to qualify for “disability” benefits, physical or mental disability of 76 percent is required. Mr. Bueno-Alves does not meet such disability threshold. His general mental disability stands at 65 percent, according to the psychiatric experts who testified in these proceedings (supra para. 37). 162. Regarding the second argument, it is the Court’s view that Mr. Bueno-Alves’ failure to seek professional help for his preexisting disorders does in no way affect the conclusions reached by the Court. As previously stated, the State must consider the victim in such condition as he was in prior to the facts that entailed a violation of his human rights. 163. In analyzing the argument regarding the lack of professional treatment after the facts, it should be noted that victims cannot obtain reparations for such damage as they could have prevented themselves by taking such measures as could reasonably be expected to be adopted, such as seeking professional help, following the attending physician’s instructions, undergoing proper treatment, and taking the prescribed medication. In other words, in deciding on the relevant reparations, the Court should consider whether the victim took such measures as should have reasonably been taken to mitigate the damage or keep it from worsening. To determine whether the victim’s actions were reasonable, the Court will assess all the facts of the case as well as the victim’s personal situation. Regarding the