34 of the property, this Tribunal considers it adequate to establish that the estimate of the corresponding interests must be done as of July 7, 1997.152 101. This Court concludes that the State must pay the victim the simple interests accrued according to the Libor rate on the amount of the just compensation as of July 1997 until February 2011, whose amount ascends to US$ 9,435,757.80 (nine million, four hundred and thirty-five hundred thousand, seven hundred and fifty-seven dollars and eighty cents of United States of America). a) Modalities of Payment of the just compensation and interests 102. The State shall pay, in cash, the capital owed, which includes the just compensation and the interests (supra paras. 84 and 101) in five equal installments throughout a five-year period, establishing March 30th of each year as the date of payment, with specifically: the first payment on March 30, 2012, the second payment on March 30, 2013, the third payment on March 30, 2014, the fourth payment on March 30, 2015, and the fifth payment on March 30, 2016. 103. If the State fails to comply with the payment of the corresponding installment on the date established in the present Judgment, it shall pay an interest on said installment, according to the bank interest on default payments in Ecuador, up to the date on which the payment is actually made. 104. The amount recorded by the State at the moment of presenting the expropriation claim in the domestic jurisdiction (supra para. 63) must be returned to the State when the aforementioned first installment of the payment is made. 2. Non-pecuniary damage 105. The Court has developed in its jurisprudence the standard of non-pecuniary damage and has established that it includes “both the suffering and grief caused to the direct victim and her next of kin, the damage to values very important to the people, as well as the alterations, on a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victim or their family.153 106. The representatives expressed that in the present case the victim “has experimented a lot of concern […] since she found herself in a situation of complete insecurity for several fiveyear periods with regard to the fate of her assets (and that of her family), due to the lack of resolution of the different judicial proceedings regarding her property.” They requested the amount of US$25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand dollars of the United States of America) for the standard of non-pecuniary damages, as well as to repair the violation to the rights acknowledged in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention. 107. On its part, the State expressed that “it is aware that a violation to fundamental rights entails a moral damage; however, not all violations result in the same grave effects.” The State considers that, even though human rights are interdependent and hierarchically of an equal value and importance, it cannot be considered that a violation as grave as an extrajudicial execution or torture deserves a monetary reparation of equal value for the 152 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Case Guiso-Gallisay v. Italya, supra note 82, para. 105, and Eur. Court H.R., Case Schembri and others v. Malta, supra note 83, para. 18. 153 Cf. Case of the “Street Children”(Villagrán Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) V. Brazil, supra note 8, para. 305, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México, supra note 8, para. 255.