58 356 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 3d SERIES v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 999 F.Supp. 1, 29 (D.D.C. 1998) ). [34, 35] ‘‘Mental anguish, bereavement and grief resulting from’’ an immediate family member’s death or injury ‘‘constitutes the preponderant element of a claim for solatium.’’ Id. at 356–57 (quoting Flatow, 999 F.Supp. at 30) (alteration adopted); see also Baker v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahirya, 775 F.Supp.2d 48, 83 (D.D.C. 2011) (‘‘A claim of solatium seeks compensation for the ‘mental anguish, bereavement and grief that those with a close personal relationship to a decedent experience as a result of the decedent’s death, as well as the harm caused by the loss of the decedent, society and comfort.’ ’’ (quoting Belkin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 667 F.Supp.2d 8, 22 (D.D.C. 2009) ) ). In determining the appropriate amount to compensate victims’ family members for emotional distress, ‘‘the Court may look to prior decisions awarding damages TTT for solatium.’’ Acosta, 574 F.Supp.2d at 29. Solatium damages, by their nature, are ‘‘unquantifiable,’’ Moradi, 77 F.Supp.3d at 72, and, therefore, this Court has developed a commonly accepted standardized framework, known as the Heiser damages framework, for solatium damages, Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F.Supp.2d 229, 269 (D.D.C. 2006); see also Roth, 78 F.Supp.3d at 403 (noting the ‘‘framework has been adopted by other courts as an appropriate measure of solatium damages for the family members of victims of state-sponsored terror’’ (citing Valore, 700 F.Supp.2d at 85) ). Though use of the Heiser framework is not mandatory, Fraenkel, 892 F.3d at 351 (‘‘District Court judges invariably must exercise discretion in determining damages awards under the FSIA. There is no statutory basis for concluding that district courts must award solatium damages in the amounts that Heiser found commonly granted.’’ (emphasis in original) ), this Court adopts this framework here in the interest of consistency. As a baseline, under the Heiser framework, parents ‘‘received $ 5 million.’’ Valencia v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 774 F.Supp.2d 1, 15 (D.D.C. 2010). As noted, ‘‘families of victims who have died are typically awarded greater damages than families of victims who remain alive.’’ Estate of Heiser, 466 F.Supp.2d at 269 (quoting Haim v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 425 F.Supp.2d 56, 75 (D.D.C. 2006) ). [36] These numbers serve only as a baseline from which the Court may deviate to compensate for specific circumstances. See Fraenkel, 892 F.3d at 362 (‘‘While past solatium awards from comparable cases are appropriate sources of guidance for district courts, different plaintiffs (even under FSIA) will prove different facts that may well (and should) result in different damage awards.’’ (internal quotation marks omitted) ). Factors militating in favor of an award enhancement generally fall into one of three categories: ‘‘evidence establishing an especially close relationship between the plaintiff and decedent, particularly in comparison to the normal interactions to be expected given the familial relationship; medical proof of severe pain, grief or suffering on behalf of the claimant; and circumstances surrounding the terrorist attack which made the suffering particularly more acute or agonizing.’’ Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 768 F.Supp.2d 16, 26–27 (D.D.C. 2011). ‘‘Decisions to deviate from the starting points provided by the Heiser framework are committed to the discretion of the particular court in each caseTTTT’’ Id. at 26. In Fred and Cindy’s case, an upward enhancement is warranted. ‘‘While it is difficult to quantify the grief that’’ Fred and Cindy ‘‘have experienced, and continue to experience, as a result of North Korea’s