44 159. Based on the above, the Court orders the State to return the sum confiscated during the search and when Mr. Bayarri was detained. This amounts to US$2,113.00 (two thousand one hundred and thirteen United States dollars). The Court assesses the time that has elapsed since the confiscation of the money and the financial prejudice caused to Mr. Bayarri and therefore decides to grant, in equity, a total of US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) for this concept. * * * 160. The representatives also requested compensation for “lost opportunities” (derecho de chance); in other words, for “[t]he thwarted right of [Mr. Bayarri] to improve his commercial activities and increase his patrimony.” In addition, during the public hearing and in their final written arguments, the representatives requested the application of the “mechanism […] of punitive damages”; in other words, that the total compensation be increased “based on the State’s attitude of denying [Mr.] Bayarri’s rights” and “in order to ensure the non-repetition of conduct such as that perpetrated against [Mr. Bayarri and his family].” The representatives requested a 30% increase. 161. In this regard, the Court reiterates the compensatory nature of the indemnity;146 its nature and amount depends on the damage that has been caused, and it should not make the victims or their successors either richer or poorer.147 Moreover, the Court has rejected claims for exemplary or dissuasive compensation.148 Therefore, the Court considers these claims inadmissible. * * * 162. In their final written arguments, the representatives referred to “new physical, motor, functional and esthetic injuries” that Mr. Bayarri apparently suffers and, consequently, asked for compensation in this regard. The representatives alleged that the victim “is suffering esthetic damage owing to disfigurement of his face as a result of the torture inflicted on him; [he has] a significant scar on the frontal part of his nose, resulting from injuries that were not treated properly while he was detained […].” They also indicated that, on Mr. Bayarri’s return “from Tegucigalpa [after the public hearing held in the instant case,] he developed a gastric ulcer and also a severe heart problem […].” In this regard, the Court observes that the request concerning the presumed disfiguring lesion of the face is time-barred. Regarding the gastric ulcer and the heart problem, even though these ailments were confirmed by the expert appraisal carried out by Dr. Juan Carlos Ziella,149 the Court does not have any elements that allow it to verify the relationship of cause and effect of these ailments with the facts of the instant case. Consequently, the Court will not assess these claims. 163. The State must pay the compensation for pecuniary damage directly to Mr. Bayarri, within one year of notification of this judgment, in the terms of paragraphs 195 to 199 infra. 146 Cf. case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 119, para. 38; case of Garrido and Baigorria, supra note 122, para. 47. 147 Cf. The “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 79; case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 30, para. 416; and case of La Cantuta, supra note 121, para. 202. 148 Cf. case of Garrido and Baigorria, supra note 122, para. 44. 149 Cf. written expert appraisal provided by Dr. Juan Carlos Ziella (merits file, tome V, folio 1069).