95 other non-pecuniary consequences they bore, the Court deems it appropriate to award compensation for non-pecuniary damage, assessed on equitable grounds.359 261. Consequently, the Court deems pertinent to determine, in equity, the amount of US$ 20.000,00 (twenty thousand dollars of the United States of America) in favor of each one of the victims in the instant case, as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. E. Legal Costs and Expenses 262. 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 Convention.360 263. The Commission requested “the payment of the reasonable and necessary costs and expenses, duly proven, which have originated and keep originating in the processing of the case.” 264. The representatives requested the Court to order the State to pay the following amounts: i) in favor of CEJIL, US$ 25,012.37 (twenty-five thousand and twelve United States dollars and thirty-seven cents) for the expenses incurred since 2001 until the presentation of the brief of pleadings and motions and US$ 17,803.725 (seventeen thousand eight hundred and three United States dollars with seven hundred and twenty-five cents) for expenses incurred after such date; and ii) in favor of Centro Prodh, US$ 13,062.13 (thirteen thousand and sixty-two United States dollars and thirteen cents) for expenses incurred from 1999 until October 31, 2009 and US$ 18,566.51 (eighteen thousand five hundred and sixtysix United States dollars and fifty-one cents) for expenses incurred after such date. Furthermore, the representatives of CEJIL indicated that they incurred in some expenses of photocopies, stationery and phone calls for an estimated amount of US$ 250 (two hundred and fifty United States dollars). Lastly, the representatives requested the Court to set an amount for future expenses related to the compliance with the Judgment. This amounts to a total of US$ 74,694.74 (seventyfour thousand six hundred and ninety-four United States dollars and seventy-four cents). 265. The State requested “to analyze and certify it with due diligence and caution, if applicable, […] in order to determine [the] legal costs.” 266. Regarding the reimbursement of the legal costs and expenses, it is for the Tribunal to assess their scope prudently. This reimbursement includes the costs arising before the domestic authorities, as well as those arising during the proceedings before the Inter-American system, taking into account the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of the international jurisdiction for the protection of human rights. This assessment must be made on an equitable 359 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al v. Perú. Reparations and Costs, supra note 358 para. 56; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 278; and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 282. 360 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina, supra note 313, para. 79; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 280; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 284.