39 the victim and those of his next of kin. In turn, the representative considered that the State must compensate Mr. Bueno-Alves and his next of kin for four items, namely: i) moral damages; ii) attack on the honor; iii) illegal deprivation of liberty; and iv) psychological damage. Taking into account all the above items, the representative deemed it “logical […] to estimate […] a sum equivalent to 30 percent of all pecuniary damages,” which would amount to US$ 5,270,405.40 (five million two hundred seventy thousand four hundred and five United States dollars and forty cents). 200. The State pointed out that the representative has not explained the reasons why she considered an amount equivalent to 30 percent of pecuniary damages as the basis to calculate non-pecuniary damages. Furthermore, it questioned all compensation items proposed by the representative, and concluded requesting the Court “to set compensation for non-pecuniary damages to [Mr.] Bueno-Alves in equity and according to the applicable international standards.” The State considered that no compensation should be granted to the victim’s next of kin for this item, as the representative “di[d] not submit even a single evidentiary item which proves the non-pecuniary damages they allegedly suffered.” 201. In this regard, the Court will not analyze items ii) and iii) (attack on the honor and illegal deprivation of liberty) as requested by the representative, since it considers that the State has not violated the right to have one’s honor respected (supra para. 122) and that no sufficient evidence has been tendered which allows modifying the Commission’s prior decisions regarding his personal liberty (supra para. 67). The other two items (moral and psychological damages), in the Court’s view, should be analyzed under the item of nonpecuniary damages. 202. Based on its opinion in prior cases,95 the Court considers that the non-pecuniary damage suffered by Mr. Bueno-Alves is evident, as it is inherent to human nature that any individual who has been inflicted torture is bound to undergo deep suffering and feel anguish, fear, defenselessness, and insecurity, whereby this type of damage is not required to be proven by means of evidence. Furthermore, the Court refers to the conclusions contained in the chapter dealing with the right to humane treatment (supra paras. 71 to 95) regarding the physical and psychological consequences suffered by the victim as a result of torture, which were compounded by the dismissal of his judicial claims, and further invokes the acceptance made by the State of the allegation that it is “obvious […] that any violation of the right to humane treatment causes not only physical but also psychological damage to the victim thereof.” Finally, the Court takes into consideration that Mr. Bueno-Alves is no longer able to continue working as a marble craftsman as a result of the events of the instant case, which has caused him moral damages. 203. Now, the controversy lies in the amount that is to be granted to the victim as compensation for non-pecuniary damages. In this regard, the Court deems it advisable to consider a percentage of pecuniary damages as the basis for setting compensation for nonpecuniary damages. These are of a different nature and do not depend on each other. Furthermore, it is not possible to set an accurate amount of money which is equivalent to the non-pecuniary damages. Thus, for the purpose of granting comprehensive reparation to the victim through the payment of a sum of money or the delivery of goods or services susceptible of being assessed in terms of money, the Court, in its judicial discretion, will set 95 Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 14, para. 217, Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 15, para. 157; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 43, para. 384.