48 to the following facts: a) Mr. Usón Ramírez was detained arbitrarily by a command of the National Guard, at Puerto Ordaz airport, in front of many people who were present there”; b) Mr. Usón Ramírez was judgmentd unjustifably to five years and six months in prison, remaining effectively in prison for three years and seven months; during this time he was separated from his family and cut off from his activities”; c) [d]uring his time in prison […] Mr. Usón Ramírez had to be with other inmates, without privacy, in a hostile environment that did not meet the appropriate health conditions and that deteriorated considerably his health and his mental state; d) Mr. Usón Ramírez received threats addressed to him and, on many occasions, he felt his life was threatened” in prison; e) during his imprisonment[,] Mr. Usón Ramírez was refused the right to timely and adequate medical assistance, being the victim of medical malpractice at the Military Hospital, which could have cost him his life and caused him considerable anguish and suffering”, and f) Mr. Usón Ramírez was subjected to public scorn by the highest Government officials, including the President of the Republic[ and] the Vice President of the Republic then, José Vicente Rangel, [who] accused him of conspiring against the Government and announced he would be detained, a fact that really occurred four days later, although with an excuse different from what Rangel had stated.” According to the representatives, “Mr. Usón [Ramirez was also] offended systematically by the then minister of Defense [and] by the Army Commander [...] who, on many occasions, took advantage of the situation to discredit him before the military personnel. Likewise, the military attorneys participating in the case also took advantage of every occasion to say he was a problem officer acting with mal intention.” 229. Similarly, the representatives alleged that Mrs. María Eugenia Borges de Usón and Mrs. María José Usón Borges, Francisco Usón’s wife and daughter respectively, were also “damaged due to the violations of human rights suffered by Mr. Usón Ramírez in this case, so they have requested the amount of “fifty thousand U.S. dollars (US $ 50.000[,00]), or its equivalent in national currency, for each one of them” as inpecuniary damages. 230. To that end, this Tribunal has already established that it shall not order any reparations on the basis of the alleged damages suffered by Mrs. María Eugenia Borges de Usón and Mrs. María José Usón Borges, since they are not considered as “injured parties” in this case (supra para. 163). Likewise, the Tribunal observes that the allegations of the representatives regarding the “conditions” of the place where Mr. Usón Ramírez was imprisoned, the alleged threats against him, the alleged “medical malpractice” suffered at the Military Hospital and the alleged “public scorn” by the highest officers in the government, are not based on facts within the framework of the dispute presented by the Commission in its application. Consequently, the Tribunal shall pronounce on the alleged non-pecuniary damages suffered by Mr. Usón Ramírez which occurred, according to the representatives, due to these alleged facts. Hence, the Court shall determine whether the violations of the human rights of Mr. Usón Ramírez declared in this Judgment caused nonpecuniary damages to him. 231. Furthermore, the Court observes that, in view of the violations pronounced in this case, Mr. Usón Ramírez was subjected to an unnecessary preventive detention ordered by tribunals that lacked competence, independence and impartiality. Furthermore, Mr. Usón Ramírez was judgmentd to five years and six months imprisonment, having to remain in prison, separated from his family, for three years and seven months, and limited in exercising his freedom of expression due to the restrictions entailed in his parole (supra para. 98 to 100). It is clear that these deprivations, resulting from the violations of the Convention rights of Mr. Usón Ramírez pronounced in this Judgment, caused him fear, anguish and suffering; this determines non-pecuniary damages that can be repaired by a compensating indemnity, pursuant to equity.