37 131. Moreover, the Court notes that the State as well as the representative has referred to the piece of property delivered to Ticona Estrada’s family,110 which is located in the residential area of Río Seco, La Libertad, Parcel No. 207, block D19, with a surface of 240 mts., and awarded in César Ticona Estrada's name. Said piece of property, according to the representative, has an approximate commercial value of US$ 1.500.00 (one thousand five hundred dollars of the United States of America) to US$2.000.00 (two thousand dollars of the United States of America) Pursuant to the State, said piece of property has an approximate commercial value of US$ 2.400.00 (two thousand four hundred dollars of the United States). The State requested the Court to take such piece of property as part of the reparations. In such regard, the representative, during the public hearing held on August 13, 2008 as well as in the closing arguments, and also Hugo Ticona, in the statement rendered in said public hearing, mentioned that should the Court consider the adjudication of the property as part of the reparations granted by the State to Ticona Estrada's family, the amount equal to the value of the property will be deducted from the total amount determined by the Court. Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal observes that there is no controversy between the parties as to the fact that the piece of property forms part of the reparation ordered in this Judgment. As a consequence, the Court considers that the value of said parcel shall be taken into account as part of the compensation for non-pecuniary damage in favor of César Ticona Estrada. 132. Furthermore, the State expressed it desire to build a house for Renato Ticona's parents. In this sense, it informed that the Ministry of Public Works, Utilities and Housing certified that it will compensate such persons with a house in the Department of Cruz or in the city of El Alto de la Paz.110 The Commission and the representative made no statement regarding this issue. In consideration of the arguments of the State, the Court deems that the State must built an adequate house,111 and therefore, it shall assume all the expenses related to such construction, which must be planned in common agreement with the victim's parents. In view of the above, this Tribunal notes that the value of said property shall be taken into account as part of the compensation for non-pecuniary damage in favor of Honoria Estrada de Ticona and César Ticona Estrada. Besides, the State shall adopt the necessary measures to initiate the construction, within one year, as of notice of this Judgment. Regarding Renato Ticona 133. As the Court has held in similar cases,112 the non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mr. Ticona Estrada is evident, since it is human nature that a person subjected to forced disappearance suffers from deep pain, anguish, terror, impotence and insecurity. As a result, this damage need not be proven. 110 According to the State, on April 3, 1984 Supreme Decree N. 20127, through which the municipal order N.42/84 of March 19, 1984 issued by the Mayor of Ciudad de La Paz, was ratified. Said order especified the giving of lots of land in the region of Rio Seco, of Ciudad del Alto, to the next of kin of the deceased and dissapeared persons in the period of the dictatorship. 111 Cf. Official letter MOPSV-VMVU-PVS Nº 192-2008 of August 12, 2008 of the general coordinator, of the Vice-Minister of Housing and Town Planning, Ministry of Public Works, Utilities and Housing. The value of the property has a referential sum of UFV (Bolivian unit of measurement of market value) 33,251 to UFV 53.190 (appendices to the final written arguments of the State, Appendix 11, p. 5). 111 Cf. U.N. Doc. E/1991/23. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Observation 4, the right to an adequate house, paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Covenant, Sixth period of sessions, 1991. 112 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Perú. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 86; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 13, para. 238; and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 16, para. 169.