22 severe physical pain and mental suffering. The proceedings conducted in the case prosecuted against him did not meet the requirements of due process (arbitrary detention, parading the victim before the press in prison garb, lack of judicial guarantees and judicial protection). Moreover, the circumstances surrounding his torture have never been investigated. In paragraph 104 of the Judgment on the merits that the Court delivered on August 18, 2000, it states the following: Considering the circumstances of the case, and the context in which the facts took place, this Tribunal considers, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at least some of the acts of aggression examined in this case can be classified as physical and psychological torture. The Court also considers that said acts were planned and inflicted deliberately upon Mr. Cantoral Benavides for at least two purposes. Prior to his conviction, the purpose was to wear down his psychological resistance and force him to incriminate himself or to confess to certain illegal activities. After he was convicted, the purpose was to subject him to other types of punishment, in addition to imprisonment. 60. It is obvious to the Court that the facts of this case dramatically altered the course that Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides’ life would otherwise have taken. The pain and suffering that those events inflicted upon him prevented the victim from fulfilling his vocation, aspirations and potential, particularly with regard to his preparation for his chosen career and his work as a professional. All this was highly detrimental to his “life project.”47 61. In determining the non-pecuniary damages for the victim’s immediate next of kin, the Court is weighing the following considerations: a) In the case of Mrs. Gladys Benavides López, the Court’s jurisprudence constante is that in the case of a victim’s parents, moral damages need not be shown.48 Moreover, in the instant case it is clear that the victim’s mother personally undertook the responsibility of securing the release of her son Luis Alberto. Aware as she was of the conditions of her son’s incarceration, her mental torment can be presumed. She suffered physical ailments as well. She was humiliated, harassed and intimidated. She was forced to endure vaginal inspections on some of the visits she made to her son’s prison. During those visits, she was denied any affectionate physical contact with her son. Often the visits to the detention and incarceration centers were restricted. Her family broke apart: her sons Luis Alberto, Luis Fernando and José Antonio had to leave the country because of the situation in Peru at the time and the circumstances they had experienced. She also suffered from a variety of health problems caused by the events in this case; b) In the case of Luis Fernando Cantoral Benavides, the victim’s twin brother who went with him when he was detained and was also detained and incarcerated for similar reasons experienced his brother’s suffering firsthand. As a consequence of the events in this case, he, too, had to leave the country and lives apart from his family. Given these facts, the Court reiterates that in the case of siblings, the intensity of the bond and affective relationship 47 Loayza Tamayo Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, paragraph 147. 48 Cf. The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 66; “White Van” Case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 108, and Castillo Páez Case. Reparations, supra note 25, paragraph 88.