46 owing to the persisting impunity as regards the identification of those responsible for his detention and torture. All of this has caused him non-pecuniary damage. 169. Following the criteria established in other cases,152 the Court considers that the nonpecuniary damage inflicted on Mr. Bayarri is evident, because it is inherent in human nature that any persons subjected to torture experiences profound suffering, anguish, terror, feelings of powerlessness and insecurity, so that this harm does not need to be proved. In addition, the Court refers to the conclusions of the chapter on the right to personal liberty and humane treatment, as well as to the consequences of a physical and psychological nature that the torture and detention produced for the victim and that have been established in this judgment. 170. Consequently, the Court finds it pertinent to establish, in equity, the sum of US$100,000.00 (one hundred thousand United States dollars) as compensation for the nonpecuniary damage that the human rights violations declared in this judgment caused Mr. Bayarri. 171. The State must make the payment of the compensation for non-pecuniary damage directly to Mr. Bayarri within one year of notification of this judgment, in the terms of paragraphs 195 to 199 infra. C) Obligation to investigate the facts that gave rise to the violations in this case and identify, prosecute and, if applicable, punish those responsible 172. The Commission alleged that “[t]he first and most important measure of reparation in this case is to end the denial of justice that has lasted almost 16 years.” It indicated that those responsible for the facts of the instant case must be investigated and punished and, in particular, the appropriate criminal disciplinary and civil responsibilities must be established. 173. The representatives indicated that, since there is impunity as regards the violations that were committed, Mr. Bayarri has well-founded fears of being a “[v]ictim once again in a spurious criminal action.” Consequently, they asked the Court to order the State to file administrative proceedings against all the police agents who intervened in the facts, as well as to guarantee prompt criminal trials, “in which these persons are prevented from doing whatever they want and being able to count on the support of the judges in order to use all kinds of procedural ploys.” The representatives asked the Court to “monitor the rulings to guarantee the non-repetition of these facts.” 174. The State indicated that on May 30, 2006, National Court of First Instance No. 49 decreed the closure of the preliminary investigative proceedings in case 66,138; consequently, it considered that it had complied with its obligation to investigate the facts of this case. 175. Bearing in mind the above, as well as this Court’s case law,153 the Court decides that the State must conclude the criminal action initiated based on the facts that gave rise to 152 Cf. Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 157; Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 143; and case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 10, para. 238. 153 Cf. case of Baldeón García, supra note 96, para. 199; the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 295; and case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 10, para. 185.