USD 750,000 (seven hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars) to Mr. Guevara for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 107. The state requested that an amount be established in equity for the damage caused to Mr. Guevara. 108. The Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that this “may include the suffering and affliction caused to the direct victim and his family, the impairment of values that are very significant for the individual, and also the changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victim or his family.”110 109. Therefore, in view of the circumstances of this case, the harm caused to the victim by the violations committed, and the other non-pecuniary impacts he suffered, the Court deems it pertinent to establish, in equity, compensation equivalent to USD 30,000.00 (thirty thousand dollars of the United States of America) for Mr. Guevara. G. Costs and Expenses 110. The representative asked that for costs and expenses, the state be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to 20% of the compensation it was ordered to pay. 111. The state argued that the costs are part of reparations and must be included in the calculation of expenses incurred before the courts, taking into account the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of international jurisdiction. In the specific case, it held that the representative had not provided evidence to enable assessment or establishment of an approximate amount for costs and expenses, and therefore, the request was contrary to the practice of the Court. 112. The Court reiterates that, based on its case law,111 costs and expenses form part of the concept of reparation, because the efforts made by the victims to obtain justice, both at the national and international level, entail disbursements that must be compensated when the state’s international responsibility has been declared in a condemnatory judgment. Regarding the reimbursement of costs and expenses, it is for the Court to prudently assess their scope, which includes expenses incurred before the authorities of the domestic courts and those generated 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 may be based on the principle of equity, taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided that their quantum is reasonable.112 113. Additionally, the Court has found that as regards claims of financial expenditures, the representatives must describe the line items clearly and justify them.113 In this case, Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra, para. 56; and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 197. 110 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 82; and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 200. 111 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina, supra, para. 82; and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 200. 112 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 277; and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 201. 113 32