76 256. As the Court has held in similar cases,248 the non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mariela Morales Caro, Pablo Antonio Beltrán Palomino, Virgilio Hernández Serrano, Carlos Fernando Castillo Zapata, Luis Orlando Hernández Muñoz, Yul Germán Monroy Ramírez, Gabriel Enrique Vesga Fonseca, Benhur Iván Guasca Castro, Orlando Morales Cárdenas, César Augusto Morales Cepeda, Arnulfo Mejía Duarte, Samuel Vargas Páez, Arturo Salgado Garzón, Wilson Humberto Mantilla Castilla and Manuel Libardo Díaz Navas is evident, since it is human nature that a person subjected to arbitrary detention and extrajudicial execution suffers deep pain, anguish, terror, impotence and insecurity. As a result, these damages need not be proved. Moreover, surviving victim Arturo Salgado documented the anguish and suffering endured by the victims in the public hearing held before the Inter-American Court249. 257. The Court observes that the domestic proceedings did not award compensation for the suffering of these deceased victims. Consequently, it is appropriate for the Court to order an award. 258. With regards to the next of kin of the twelve executed victims and the next of kin of the surviving victim Arturo Salgado Garzón, it has been established that they are victims of the violation of Articles 5, 8 and 25 of the Convention, in accordance with the terms of paragraphs 141 and 225 of the present Judgment. 259. The testimony of victim Arturo Salgado and the victims’ next of kin in these proceedings demonstrate the broad effects that the events of the Rochela Massacre had on various aspects of their lives, such as their mental and physical health, family relations, finances and work. 260. With regards to the impact on professional life and security, Mr. Virgilio Alfonso Hernández Castellano, son of a deceased victim, stated that while serving as a prosecutor he was accused of “investigating members of the public force out of revenge, [because he had a] vindictive or inquisitive fury”, and thus had to “go into exile [for] a six-month period and later for two years] as a result of the threats [he] received”. Later on, he had to leave his position as a prosecutor. In his account of one of these threats, he stated that “[he] was reminded that he was the son of one of the victims of The Rochela[, …] and was told to step out of the investigations against members of paramilitary groups” “or else they would finish off [his] family tree”. 261. The health of several relatives of the executed victims was severely affected. For example, one month after the massacre, Mr. Gilberto de Jesús Morales Téllez “developed a severe Reactive Depression as a result of the murder of his daughter Mariela Morales Caro”. This was followed by a peptic ulcer that caused upper gastrointestinal bleeding which in turn brought on “pulmonary aspiration and hypovolemic shock”. According to a medical certificate, “[his] clinical condition deteriorated and Mr. Morales Téllez developed a multiple organ dysfunction syndrome that led to his death on April 16, 1989,”250 just three months after the massacre. 248 Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 8, para. 217; Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 11, para. 157; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 15, para. 384. 249 Cf. witness testimony offered by Arturo Salgado Garzón in the public hearing before the Inter-American Court held January 31 and February 1 of 2007. 250 Cf. medical report offered by Diego León Severiche Hernández, internist, pulmonologist, and intensive care specialist; and the death certificate of Mr. Gilberto de Jesús Morales Téllez issued on April 17, 1989 (record of evidences to the brief containing pleadings and motions, volume I, pages 2175 to 2177).