290 87 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 3d SERIES Yong Kim recalls learning about Reverend Kim’s abduction from Yong Kim’s nephew, Tae Ha Kim. Id., ¶ 16. The initial notice of his brother’s abduction caused him to be in shock and fear for his brother’s life. Id. ¶ 17. Yong Kim ‘‘thought about [his] brother day and night and [he] was unable to sleep.’’ Id. After some time with no notice of Reverend Kim’s whereabouts, Yong Kim’s ‘‘shock turned to despair and depression.’’ Id. ¶ 18. Reverend Kim’s abduction, and the lack of information as to his condition, made it difficult for Yong Kim to work, focus, and maintain family relationships. Id. ¶ 19. ‘‘The unrelenting worry and fear over [his] brother’s abduction has caused [him] to experience a long term sadness and depression.’’ Id. ¶ 28. It is clear from Yong Kim’s declaration that Reverend Kim’s abduction, and presumed torture and death have caused him great emotional strife and has profoundly affected his life. [6–8] The Kims seek compensatory damages for their pain, suffering, and solatium. Solatium, a form of compensatory damages, seeks ‘‘to compensate persons for mental anguish, bereavement and grief that those with a close personal relationship to a decedent experience as well as the harm caused by the loss of the decedent’s society and comfort.’’ Roth, 78 F.Supp.3d 379, 402, 2015 WL 349208 at *15 (quoting Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 768 F.Supp.2d 16, 25 (D.D.C.2011)) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). ‘‘Courts may presume that those in direct lineal relationships with victims of terrorism suffer compensable mental anguish[,] TTT and testimony proving a close emotional relationship will usually be sufficient to sustain an award of solatium damages’’ for siblings. Id. Han Kim and Yong Kim have both demonstrated a close emotional relationship to Rever- end Kim, and both have expressed their deep grief as a result of his abduction, and presumed torture and death. While it is difficult to quantify the grief that Han Kim and Yong Kim have experienced, and continue to experience, as a result of North Korea’s violent actions, these plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for their loss, pain, mental anguish, and suffering. Accordingly, Han Kim and Yong Kim will be awarded a judgment of $15,000,000 each against North Korea in compensatory damages, amounting to approximately $1,000,000 per year since Reverend Kim’s initial abduction in 2000. This calculation is within the range of damage awards in similar cases that involve abduction and torture by a non-immune foreign sovereign. See, e.g., Massie v. Gov’t of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 592 F.Supp.2d 57, 77 (D.D.C.2008) (awarding $1,250,000 to the spouse of a torture victim held for nearly one year by North Korea); Anderson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 90 F.Supp.2d 107, 114 (D.D.C.2000) (awarding $6,700,000 to the daughter of a torture victim held for approximately six and a half years); Cicippio v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 18 F.Supp.2d 62, 70 (D.D.C.1998) (awarding $10 million to the spouse of a torture victim held for 63 months and $9 million to the spouse of a torture victim held for 44 months). II. PUNITIVE DAMAGES [9, 10] ‘‘Punitive damages are not meant to compensate the victim, but [are] instead meant to award the victim an amount of money that will punish outrageous behavior and deter such outrageous conduct in the future.’’ Bodoff v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 907 F.Supp.2d 93, 105 (D.D.C.2012) (quoting Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 879 F.Supp.2d 44, 56 (D.D.C.2012)). The determination as to the proper amount of punitive damages to