awarded in the domestic courts.” It also argued that “the representatives […] provided no evidence concerning Sabina Furlan, or regarding the fact that her decision to live abroad was related to the alleged violations.” It concluded that “the sums claimed […] exceed those established by this Court’s case law.” Considerations of the Court 319. International jurisprudence has repeatedly established that the judgment may constitute per se a form of reparation.483 Nevertheless, in its case law, the Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damages and has established that this “may include the suffering and anguish caused to the direct victims and their next of kin, the harm to values of great significance to the individual, as well as changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victim or his family.”484 320. In this case, the Court finds that the impact caused by the delay in the judicial proceedings and its execution not only caused him distress, anxiety, uncertainty and frustration, but also affected him severely since his childhood as regards his personal, family, social and employment relationships, depriving him of the possibility of constructing his own autonomous and independent life project. 321. Considering the circumstances of this case, the suffering that the violations caused the victims (supra para. 265 and 269), as well as the change in their living conditions and other consequences of a non-pecuniary nature that they suffered, the Court deems it appropriate to set, in equity, the sum of US$ 60,000 (sixty thousand dollars of the United States of America) in favor Sebastián Furlan as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In addition, the Court orders, as compensation for non-pecuniary damage and based on equity, the sums of US$ 30,000 (thirty thousand dollars of the United States of America) for Danilo Furlan and US$ 15,000 ( fifteen thousand dollars of the United States of America) each for Susana Fernández, Claudio Erwin Furlan and Sabina Eva Furlan. D. Costs and expenses 322. The representatives asked the Court to “order the State of Argentina to pay the costs and expenses incurred by the alleged victims and their representatives, both in the [domestic] proceedings and before the […]Commission.” They requested that the Court “order the State of Argentina to pay Danilo Furlan US$ 3,500 (three thousand five hundred United States dollars) for costs, based on the equity principle.” The State responded that “on the assumption that this case is not rejected, it is requesting that the costs and expenses be subsequently established based on equity.” 323. As the Court has pointed out on previous occasions, costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparation established in Article 63(1) of the American Convention.485 The Court has indicated that the claims of victims or their representatives concerning costs and expenses, and the evidence to support these, must be submitted to the Court at the first procedural opportunity granted them, namely in the pleadings and 483 Cf. Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 35, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, para. 166. 484 Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs, para. 84, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 318. 485 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 Forneron and Daughter v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012 Series C No. 242, para. 198. 100