repeatedly that the judgment may constitute per se a form of reparation. 576 The Court has also developed in its case law the concept of non-pecuniary damage, which can include the suffering and affliction caused to the direct victims, the impairment of values that are of great significance for the individual, and also the changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victims or their family. 577 416. In the instant case, this Court has considered it proved that Ms. J. had a bachelor’s degree in law at the time of her arrest. Even though Ms. J. has received an income after leaving Peru, the Court considers that it should establish, in equity, compensation for Ms. J.’s loss of earnings. In addition, the Court finds it reasonable to presume that the facts of this case have caused Ms. J. to incur expenses, such as medical care. Also, the Court considers that, owing to the violations declared in this Judgment, it can be presumed that these caused serious non-pecuniary damage, because it is inherent in human nature that any person who has suffered a violation of his or her human rights experiences suffering. 578 417. The Court does not have sufficient probative elements to determine with precision the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused in the instant case. However, based on the criteria established in the Court’s consistent case law, the circumstances of the case, the nature and severity of the violations committed, as well as the physical, moral and psychological suffering caused to the victim, 579 the Court finds it pertinent to establish, in equity, for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage the sum of US$40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars), which must be paid within the respective time frame established by the Court (infra para. 429). F) Costs and expenses 418. As the Court has indicated on previous occasions, costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparation established in Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 580 Costs and expenses are part of the concept of reparation, because the actions taken by the victims in order to obtain justice at both the domestic and the international level, entail disbursements that must be compensated when the State’s international responsibility has been declared in a guilty verdict. 581 419. The representative asked for “reimburse[ment of] the costs and expenses disbursed by J. over the time – since 1997 – that this case has been processed by the inter-American system.” She also requested the “reimbursement of legal fees and the hours spent by the legal representatives 582 In addition, the representative advised that, following the delivery of working […] on this case.” the final written arguments, she had incurred expenditure of US$866,522. On that occasion, she indicated that, in total, the “costs of litigation, during the stage of the proceedings before Court are [US$15,980,522]. 576 Cf. Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 35, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 265.6. 577 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 251. 578 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 176, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 303. 579 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 109, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 309. 580 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 79, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 315. 581 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 79, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 316. 582 In this regard, she indicated “as a reference point, an hourly rate according to the rates applied by the UK Attorney General’s Panel of Counsel, of £120 an hour.” 121