173. On the loss of his life plan, the disruption of his sources of income and loss of social status, the Respondent State argues that the Applicant decided to quit his job in Cote d'ivoire to live as a dependant of his wife in Tanzania. In the Respondent State's view, his modest allowance as an intern at the ICTR could not maintain his upkeep or social status and he did not therefore have any meaningful source of income. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant rather disrupted his own life plan along with his source of income and social status. 174. Regarding the lack of communication with the Applicant's family since his incarceration, the Respondent State submits that it has not banned any visits and cannot force relatives to visit the Applicant. The Respondent State avers that it has not denied the Applicant any medical treatment and shall continue to provide the same where necessary. 175. Concerning the claim of physical and psychological abuse, the Respondent State alleges that the Applicant was not arrested by its agents but rather by the ICTR who then handed him over to the police. According to the Respondent State, the Applicant has failed to prove any of the abuses alleged. 176. Finally, with respect to the Applicant's prayers to be compensated because he could not be returned to his situation before incarceration, the Respondent State requests the Court to dismiss it since the incarceration was lawful. *** 177. As this Court has held in its previous judgments on reparations, the causal link between the wrongful act and moral damage "can result from the human rights violation, as a consequence thereof, without a need to establish causality as such".52 The Court has also held that the evaluation of quantum in cases of nonpecuniary damage must be done in fairness and taking into account the See Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (Reparations), op. Burkina Faso (Reparations), §. 58. 52 42