55 as understood in the Court’s case law. They also considered that the victim’s parents should be compensated for the abduction and arbitrary detention of their daughter, the surveillance of the house before and after the detention, and the photographs that were taken of their daughter, as well as the harm to their reputation when the video with the false statement of Maritza Urrutia was broadcast in the media, the fact of having heard lies about her whereabouts and opinions, and her father having been obliged to publish a note thanking the Guatemalan Army for the appearance of his daughter in the media and to assume the responsibility for liberating her, all in violation of Articles 1, 5, 11, 13, 8 and 25 of the Convention; d) Edmundo and Carolina, both Urrutia García, the victim’s siblings, should each be compensated with US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars), as compensation, based on the fact that it may be presumed that the victim’s suffering affected her siblings, who cannot be indifferent to the grave affliction of their sister. The victim’s brother also assumed the responsibility for liberating Maritza Urrutia and was forced to leave the country for fear of becoming a victim of the State agents, because, during the interrogation of his sister, they asked her about his activities; this caused problems in his private, family and professional life. The victim’s sister was affected psychologically, to such an extent that she had to attend a specialist for about two years, all in violation of Articles 1, 5, 11, 13, 8 and 25 of the Convention; and e) René Estuardo and María Gabriela, both Escobar Urrutia, nephew and niece of the victim, should each be compensated with US$8,000.00 (eight thousand United States dollars), as compensation, because they were affected psychologically and had to attend a specialist. They lived with the victim and, because they are minors, they merit special treatment from the State. Consequently, Articles 1, 5, 11, 13 and 19 of the Convention were violated; f) The victim was obliged to change her way of life radically, she was separated from her family and performed less skilled work, so that the quality of life of herself and her son deteriorated. Consequently, they requested as reparation for the damage to the life project of the victim, a study grant for her son in the amount of US$2,000.00 (two thousand United States dollars) a year for five years, so that he could conclude his high school certificate at The Hague International School and another grant of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) a years, for four years, so that he could carry out university studies. The study grants for Fernando Sebastián Barrientos Urrutia totaled US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars). Arguments of the State 164. The State did not refer to non-pecuniary damage. Considerations of the Court 165. With regard to non-pecuniary damage, this Court observes that, in the application, the Commission requested a symbolic sum for the victim. In their brief with requests, arguments and evidence, the representatives of the victim expressed their agreement with this request. However, extemporaneously, in the brief with final arguments, they provided a detailed list in which they requested compensation,