Judgment includes no opinion regarding the facts classified as “spoils of war” (supra para. 191), the request for compensation in that sense is also not granted. 305. Lastly, regarding the expenditures that the victims incurred to conduct and carry out the different proceedings in domestic and international venues, since the request was also made by the representative under the item of costs, the Court considers it pertinent to analyze the expenditures as part of costs. G.2. Non-pecuniary damages 306. The representative indicated that the non-pecuniary damages, "consisting of the serious and prolonged suffering experienced," is estimated at the sum of USD 400,000.00 (four hundred thousand dollars of the United States of America), "for each of the applicants." Regarding the harm in the form of “uncertainty, suffering, pain, and anguish of various types and long duration" caused by the acts committed against Anatole and Victoria, it requested USD 400,000.00 (four hundred thousand dollars of the United States of America) “to each of them.” It indicated that it is without question appropriate to redress "the profound harm caused to the 'life plans’ of the parents," for which it asked the Court to set, in equity, the appropriate amount. It added that the “non-pecuniary damage caused by Decree 1025/96 “and its derivations” “should be treated separately”, for which it requested USD 70,000.00 (seventy thousand dollars of the United States of America) “for each one of the applicants.” 307. The Court has established that non-pecuniary damages may include distress and suffering caused directly to the victims or their relatives, such as undermining individual core values, and changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victims or their families. 320 308. Regarding damage to life plans, this Court has found that such damage is distinct from loss of future earnings and indirect damages. 321 Indeed, a life plan involves the full selfactualization of the person concerned and takes account their calling in life, particular circumstances, potential, and ambitions, thus permitting them to hold certain reasonable expectations and achieve them. 322 Therefore, the life plan consists of expectations for personal, professional, and family development that would be attainable under normal conditions. 323 This Court has indicated that damage to life plans includes loss or serious jeopardy to opportunities for personal development that is either irreparable or very difficult to redress. 324 In certain cases, the Court has also ordered relative compensation for this type of damage, among other measures. 325 309. In view of the serious facts committed and the violations declared, the Court deems it appropriate, as it has in previous cases, 326 to order compensation for the non-pecuniary damage caused to Mario Roger Julien Cáceres and Victoria Lucía Grisonas Andrijauskaite, as Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, par. 84, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, par. 132. 321 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998, Series C No. 42, par. 147, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, par. 154. 322 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, supra, par. 147, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, par. 154. 323 Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004, Series C No. 114, par. 245, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, par. 154. 324 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, supra, par. 150, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, par. 154. 325 Cf. Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, par. 293, and Case of Rosadio Villavicencio v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 14, 2019. Series C No. 388, par. 249. 326 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, pars. 51 52; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, supra, par. 132, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, par. 134. 320 76