for telephone calls to his family while they were still in Haiti;118 (d) remittances of money by Mr. Fleury to help his family when he was in the United States and they were in Haiti,119 and (e) loss of Mr. Fleury’s house in Haiti, which he had to abandon when he went into exile without being able to sell it.120 The Court finds that the body of evidence does not show that Mr. Fleury had a debt with the organization. In addition, although Mr. Fleury could prove the value of the property he owned in Haiti, he did not provide information on the current use of the house or on its legal contractual situation; moreover, the Court has no evidence that the house was indeed abandoned; that it was occupied by third parties who deprived Mr. Fleury of its possession; that neither he nor his family were any longer the owners of the house, or any other clear situation that entailed real impairment of his net worth. 138. Based on the above, the Court decides to establish, in equity, the sum of US$65,000.00 (sixty-five thousand United States dollars) for pecuniary damage in favor of Lysias Fleury. This amount must be paid within the corresponding time frame established by the Court (infra fourth operative paragraph). 2. Non-pecuniary damage 139. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that this “may consist of both the suffering and hardship caused to the direct victims and their next of kin, the impairment of values of great significance to the individual, and also the changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victim or his family.”121 a) Arguments of the parties 140. The Commission indicated that, in this case, “the non-pecuniary damage was evident owing to the detention and torture of Lysias Fleury, as well as the subsequent denial of justice.” Regarding his family, it stated that “they have undergone intense mental suffering, anguish, grief and alteration of their life projects because of the State’s acts and the lack of justice.” 141. The representatives asked the Court to order compensation for non-pecuniary damage of: (a) US$100,000 (one hundred thousand United States dollars) for Lysias Fleury, who suffered severe pain and physical injuries inflicted by torture, and who continues to suffer the physical aftereffects of torture, as well as the inhuman and degrading treatment used against him (he is almost deaf in his right ear, occasionally hears ringing due to the perforation of his eardrum, and is no longer able to lift his left arm or to carry heavy objects). In addition, he was separated from his wife and children for 64 months; (b) US$50,000 (fifty thousand United States dollars) for his wife, Mrs. Benoit Fleury, who suffered mental and moral harm in relation to the physical, mental and moral injuries suffered by her husband. Also, Mrs. Fleury had to start a new life in the United States, “with a foreign culture, language and way of life,” and had to abandon her own undertakings; (c) US$25,000 (twenty five thousand United States dollars) for Rose Metchnikov Fleury, Mr. Fleury’s daughter, who suffered mental and moral harm at the age of seven, when she witnessed the arrest of her father, because she did not see her father for two years, and 118 US$ 1,200.00 (one thousand two hundred United States dollars) 119 US$774.00 (seven hundred and seventy-four United States dollars) 120 US$375,000.00 (three hundred and seventy-five thousand United States dollars) 121 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra note 99, para. 84, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 90, para. 227. 37