232. The Commission "consider[ed] it relevant to redress the consequences of the violations committed against the victim by providing compensation for the [material and moral] damage caused in the case." 233. The representatives did not request the Court to order the State to pay a specific amount for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 234. The Court notes that there is no evidence on the pecuniary damage suffered by Mr. López Mendoza and that the only evidence regarding moral damage in the case file is related to the declaration of the victim in the public hearing. Mr. López Mendoza noted that “he cannot carry out any public function before the Venezuelan State, at the local, regional, and national level [and that] he was totally excluded from participating as a public servant [and] from excercising [his] political rights and to run as a candidate in a popular election.” He added that “his political career is [his] life [and that] being disqualified as a politician, as a public servant, is like taking wood away from a carpenter […] or taking the possibility away from those who dedicate themselves to justice […] from evaluating a case.” According to Mr. López Mendoza, “a political disqualification [implies] removing him completely from [his] profession, [his] vocation, of working with people, of working with citizens, of building hope through the possibility granted to people through their votes.” Finally, he specified that “as of 2008, […] he has not been able to serve as a public servant within the structure of the Venezuelan State [and that, nevertheless, he] has remained […] with the community, […] organizing the hope of a people who want an option for change.” 303 235. Considering that international jurisprudence has consistently reiterated that the Judgment may be per se a form of reparation304 (infra para. **) and, taking into account that in the circumstances of the case sub judice the Court has no other additional element to assess in addition to the declaration of the victim and the victim's representatives did not make a specific request for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, the Court does not deem a measure of pecuniary in this regard. D. Costs and expenses 236. As the Court has stated on previous occasions, costs and expenses are included in the reparations provided for in Article 63(1) of the American Convention.305 237. The Commission requested that the State "pay the costs arising at the national level in the processing of the judicial proceedings of the victim or their representatives in the domestic forum, as well as those incurred at the international level in the handling of the case before the Commission and those incurred as a result of the processing of the [...] application before the Court which are properly proven by the representatives." 238. The representatives “request[ed] that [payment be made for] the costs and expenses incurred by [Mr. López Mendoza] due to the efforts related to the processing of 303 Statement of Mr. Leopoldo López Mendoza, supra note 214. 304 Cf.Case of Neira Alegría et al. V. Perú. Reparaciones y Costas, supra note 288, para. 56; Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 149, and Case of Mejía Idrovo, supra note 15, para. 134 305 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria V. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C. No. 39, para. 79; Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 192, and Case of Mejía Idrovo, supra note 15, para. 157. 83