57 expenses arise from the access to justice, so that they will be considered in subsection (D) of this chapter. 232. Regarding Mr. Portugal’s alleged loss of earnings owing to his forced disappearance, particularly for the period from 1990 to 2000, the Court has indicated in this judgment that there is an assumption that Mr. Portugal died prior to May 9, 1990 (supra para. 31). Therefore, since the Court only has competence to repair the damage that occurred after that date, the Court will not order reparation in this regard. 233. Regarding consequential damages, having analyzed the information provided by the parties, the facts of the case, and its case law, the Court observes that, even though the corresponding receipts were not provided, it can be assumed that the victims incurred various extrajudicial expenses as a result of the disappearance and death of Heliodoro Portugal, particularly in relation to his burial and the medical and psychological treatment they indicated that they required as a result of the facts of this case. Consequently, the Court considers it appropriate to establish, in equity, the sum of US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars), for consequential damages, in favor of Graciela De León, Patria Portugal and Franklin Portugal, jointly. This amount must be delivered to Patria Portugal within one year of notification of this judgment. b) Non-Pecuniary Damages 234. The Court will determine the non-pecuniary damage in keeping with the guidelines established in its case law.178 235. The Commission alleged that Heliodoro Portugal’s next of kin had been “victims of intense psychological suffering, anguish, uncertainty, sorrow and alteration of [their] way of life, owing to the lack of justice in relation to the disappearance and death of their loved one.” Consequently, the Commission asked the Court to establish, in equity, the amount of the non-pecuniary damage. 236. The representatives asked for payment of US$100,000.00 (one hundred thousand United States dollars) to be ordered in favor of Heliodoro Portugal for non-pecuniary damage, “to be distributed among his heirs.” Likewise, based on the suffering caused them by the disappearance of Heliodoro Portugal, they asked that the State pay US$80,000.00 (eighty thousand United States dollars) each to Graciela De León, Patria Portugal and Franklin Portugal, and US$30,000.00 (thirty thousand United States dollars) each to Román Kriss Mollah and Patria Kriss Mollah, for non pecuniary damage. 237. The State argued that the damage alleged by the representatives “lack any factual basis and do not comply with the legal requirement that they be specific and authenticated.” 238. As the Court has indicated in other cases,179 the non-pecuniary damage inflicted on Heliodoro Portugal is self-evident, because it is inherent in human nature that anyone subjected to forced disappearance experiences profound suffering, anguish, terror, feelings of powerlessness and insecurity, so that this type of damage does not require evidence. 178 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al., supra note 169, para. 52; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 295; Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 24, para. 165, and Case of Kimel, supra note 61, para. 111. 179 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Perú. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 86; Case of La Cantuta, supra note 16, para. 217, and Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 23, para. 157.