66 222. In light of the compensations determined by the Tribunal in other cases on forced disappearance of people, the circumstances of the instant case, the relevance, nature and seriousness of the violations committed, the suffering caused to the victims and the treatment afforded to them, the time elapsed since the disappearance, the denial of justice as well as the change of the life plans and the remaining non-pecuniary consequences that they suffered, the Court deems pertinent to equitably determine the amount of US$ 80.000,00 (eighty thousand dollars of the United States of America) in favor of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro, as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Likewise, the Tribunal equitably determine the amount of US$ 50.000,00 (fifty thousand dollars of the United States of America) in favor of the following persons: Félix Vicente Anzualdo Vicuña; Marly Arlene Anzualdo Castro and Iris Isabel Castro Cachay de Anzualdo and US$ 20.000 (twenty thousand dollars of the United States of America) in favor of Rommel Darwin Anzualdo Castro as non –pecuniary compensation. D(3) Costs and Expenses 223. As held by the Court in prior cases, costs and expenses are included within the concept of reparation as enshrined in Article 63(1) of the American Convention246. 224. The Commission requested the Court to order the State to pay “the costs and expenses incurred by the next-of-kin of the victim and their representatives in the processing of the case, both at the national level, as well as before the InterAmerican system.” 225. As to the expenses incurred by the Anzualdo family, the representatives noted that, in the initial stage of the investigations, the family hired the services of an attorney, who charged US$ 225.00 for each brief filed. They claim that the family has not preserved the receipts of said expenses and, therefore, they requested the Court to equitably determine such amount, taking into account that the proceedings were instituted more than 14 years ago. As to the proceeding before the Court, APRODEH and CEJIL have bore the total expenses derived from the production of evidence and ensuring the access of the victims during the public hearing before the Court, except for the payment of € 80 in which Rommel Anzualdo Castro incurred to send his affidavit to the representatives from Spain, where he lives. 226. They also requested the Court to equitably determine an amount for the expenses of APRODEH in its capacity as representatives. They note that APRODEH has represented the victim at the domestic as well as the international level since the year 1994 and that it has incurred in several administrative and honoria. In the final arguments, they indicated that they covered some of the expenses as part of its participation in the public hearing, including the trips of a representative and an expert witness. They requested the Court to equitably determine the expenses incurred by APRODEH. para. 257; Case of La Cantuta V. Perú, supra note 58, para. 218; and Case of Goiburú et al. V. Paraguay, supra note 59, para. 159. 246 Case of Garrido and Baigorria V. Argentina. Reparations and Costs; supra note 217, para. 79; Case of Escher et al. V. Brazil, supra note 6, para. 255; case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller”) V. Peru. Supra note 11, para. 146.