they requested it. Nor did they indicate how this was related to the facts of this case; therefore, the Court does not consider it pertinent to order compensation for this item. D.2.2. Non-pecuniary damages 273. With regard to non-pecuniary damages, in this case the Court takes note of the suffering caused to C.A. 378, D.A., E.A., B.A., F.A., G.A., I.A., J.A., K.A., L.A., M.A. and N.A., as a result of the impunity surrounding the death of Mr. A.A. (supra paras. 236 and 258), and therefore establishes, in equity, the payment of the sum of USD $7,000.00 (seven thousand dollars of the United States of America) to each of the individuals mentioned. Likewise, it takes note of the anguish suffered by C.A., B.A., E.A., L.A., N.A., J.A. and K.A. as a result of their displacement (supra paras. 178 and 258), and therefore orders, in equity, the payment of the sum of USD $5,000.00 (five thousand dollars of the United States of America) to each of the individuals mentioned. The non-pecuniary damage caused to these persons will be taken into account to determine the corresponding compensation. E) Costs and expenses 274. The representatives asked the Court to order the “[r]eimbursement of the procedural expenses incurred in processing the case at the domestic and international levels [, as well as] future expenses generated by the litigation of the case before the Court and its subsequent implementation […].” They argued that the State should cover the costs “of legal representation and other expenses incurred by UDEFEGUA in monitoring and supporting the case.” They also requested the reimbursement of expenses incurred after the presentation of the pleadings and motions brief, related to their appearance at the public hearing held in this case and the sending of Luis Enrique Eguren’s expert opinion from Spain. 379 275. In its answer brief, the State emphasized that the representatives “have not submitted any documents proving expenditures, nor have they demonstrated how the supposed expenses are related to the evidence they provided.” It added that, “it is impossible that the relatives of [A.A.] have incurred any expenses in obtaining justice in the domestic courts, since they themselves argue[d] in the brief that they could not participate as joint plaintiffs and consequently they did not have access to the file prior to the legislative reforms.” It also reiterated that the State “had the good will to submit the case to a friendly settlement, but the petitioners refused to accept [it, which] is one of the reasons why the case has taken longer […], and the expenses have increased.” Finally, it objected to the evidentiary documents submitted by the victims’ representatives together with their final written arguments, because, according to the State, “these have nothing to do with the facts disputed in this case, given that the brief in which they were included refers to the schedule for the parties to prepare their final arguments.” The Commission did not refer specifically to this point. 276. The Court reiterates that, according to its case law, 380 costs and expenses form part of the reparations, given that the efforts made by the victims to obtain justice, both at the domestic and the international levels, imply expenses that must be compensated when the State’s international responsibility is declared in a Judgment. 277. Regarding the reimbursement of expenses, the Court must prudently assess their scope, including the costs related to the proceedings before the domestic courts, and those incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Inter-American system, bearing in mind the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of the international 378 Cf. Statement rendered by C.A. (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 1423 and 1424). They requested the reimbursement of USD $785.00 for the cost of accommodation in San José, Costa Rica, from February 2 to 7, 2014; “USD $ 1,410.51 for travel expenses of the victim and the representatives by air from Guatemala to San José”; “USD $159.29 for travel by bus and taxi within the city of San José”; “USD $ 410,92 for food from February 2-7” of 2014; USD $ 88.36 for exit taxes from Costa Rica, and USD $ 139.26 for sending the expert report of Luis Enrique Eguren from Spain. 380 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 39, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 449. 379 78