110 of indemnification of a pecuniary nature. Under the circumstances of the case it is necessary to establish such type of indemnification, assessing it according to equitableness and on the basis of a prudent assessment of the moral damage, which cannot be assessed with precision.78 207. In respect of the foregoing, and taking into account the peculiar circumstances of the case, and what has been decided in other similar cases,79 the Court deems it equitable to grant, as indemnity for moral damages, the amount of US$3.000 (three thousand U.S. dollars) to each one of the victims of the instant case. * * * 208. Concerning reimbursement, it is up to this Court to make a prudent estimate of the costs and expenses incurred, which include expenses for steps taken by the victims before the authorities of the internal jurisdiction, as well as those generated in the course of the proceeding before the inter-American system. This appraisal may be made on the basis of the principle of equitableness.80 209. To this effect, the Court deems it equitable to grant the sum of US$100,000 (one hundred thousand US dollars) as reimbursement for expenses incurred as a result of the steps taken by the victims and their representatives, and to grant the sum of US$20,000 (twenty thousand US dollars) as reimbursement for legal costs, generated, in both cases, by the internal proceedings and by the international proceeding before the inter-American protection system, such sums to be paid through the Commission. * * * 210. The Court shall not issue an opinion on the Commission’s request that it declare Article 43 of the Constitution of Panama incompatible with the Convention, since it has already solved the matter of non-retroactivity of the laws in the context of the characteristics of the instant case. 211. This Court has already declared that Law 25 violated the Convention. However, since the former was in force up to December 31, 1991, it is no longer a 78 cfr. Blake Case. Reparations (Art. 63.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 22, 1999. Series C N° 48, para. 55; Castillo-Páez Case, supra note 77, para. 84; and El Amparo Case. Reparations, supra note 77, para. 35. Also, cfr., inter alia, Cour eur. D.H., arrêt Wiesinger of October 30, 1991, Series A N° 213, p. 29, para. 85; Cour eur. D.H., arrêt Kemmache c. France (Article 50) of November 2, 1993, Series A N° 270-B, p. 16, para. 11; Cour eur. D.H., arrêt Mats Jacobsson of June 28, 1990, Series A N° 180-A, p. 16, para. 44; and Cour eur. D.H., arrêt Ferraro of February 19, 1991, Series A N° 197-A, p. 10, para. 21. 79 cfr. inter alia, Loayza-Tamayo Case. Reparations (Art. 63.1, American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C N° 42, para. 139; Caballero-Delgado and Santana Case. Reparations (Art. 63.1, American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C N° 31, para. 50; and Neira-Alegría et al. Case. Reparations, supra note 77, para. 58. 80 cfr. Case of the Constitutional Court, supra note 7, para. 125. Suárez-Rosero Case. Reparations, supra note 73, para. 92; Castillo-Páez Case. Reparations , supra note 77, para 112; and Garrido and Baigorria Case. Reparations (Art. 63.1, American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C N° 39, para. 82.