56 in fairness, for the concept of non-pecuniary damage in favor of the victim, her son, her parents, her siblings, and her niece and nephew. 166. International case law has established repeatedly that the judgment constitutes, per se, a form of reparation.113 However, owing to the circumstances of the instant case, the sufferings that the facts caused to the victim and her next of kin, the change in the living conditions of the victim, and the other consequences of a non-pecuniary nature that they suffered, the Court considers that, in fairness, payment of compensation for non-pecuniary damage is pertinent.114 167. Both the Commission and the representatives of the victim have referred to the different types of non-pecuniary damage, such as the physical and mental suffering endured by the victim, the effect on the conditions of her family life and the sufferings of the victim’s son, parents and siblings. 168. As has been proved, Maritza Urrutia was abducted, illegally and arbitrarily detained and, consequently, subjected to harsh detention conditions. It is inherent in human nature that a person subjected to arbitrary detention endures profound suffering.115 In addition, she was tortured psychologically; she was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; she suffered anguish, fear of dying and being physically tortured. Moreover, she received other kinds of pressure to record a video and make a statement against her will, which was broadcast by two television channels. This caused her anguish and suffering. She also felt fear after her release. She was diagnosed with a “syndrome of anguish with reactive depression.” The facts related to her abduction and detention have not been investigated, neither have those related to the torture to which she was subjected and, consequently, those responsible enjoy impunity. It is evident to the Court that the facts of this case resulted in a change in the normal course of Maritza Urrutia’s life, because, following the facts, she was forced to leave the country and remain far from her family, which caused her anguish and sadness. 169. It is reasonable to conclude that the afflictions that the victim suffered extend to the closest members of her family, particularly those who had close affective contact with the victim. No evidence is required to reach this conclusion.116 In view of the foregoing, and in order to establish compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers that: a) Fernando Sebastián Barrientos Urrutia, the victim’s son, must be compensated. In this case, it applies the presumption that a son suffers nonpecuniary damage owing to the sufferings of his parents.117 Moreover, the Court presumes that Fernando Sebastián suffered from the absence of his 113 Cf. Bulacio case, supra note 14, para. 96; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 14, para. 172; and “Five Pensioners” case, supra note 14, para. 180. 114 Cf. Bulacio case, supra note 14, para. 96; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 14, para. 172; and El Caracazo case. Reparations, supra note 105, para. 99. 115 Cf. Bulacio case, supra note 14, para. 98; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 14, para. 174; and Trujillo Oroza case. Reparations, supra note 97, para. 85. 116 Cf. Bulacio case, supra note 14, para. 98; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 14, para. 175; and El Caracazo case. Reparations, supra note 105, para. 50 e). 117 The “White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 105, para. 125.