a causal nexus with the facts of the case. 154 Moreover, the Court reiterates and emphasizes the entirely compensatory nature of the indemnities, whose nature and amount depend on the harm caused; therefore reparations cannot serve to enrich or impoverish the victims or their heirs. 155 155. In the present case, by failing to file the pleadings and motions brief within the statutory time limit, the representative of the victims did not submit evidence of pecuniary damage at the appropriate procedural moment. 156. Thus, given the lack of evidence, this Court proceeds to determine in equity the pecuniary damage, estimating it at the sum of USD $40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars), which the State shall pay to each of the 65 victims listed in the Single Annex or to their beneficiaries, in accordance with domestic law. F.2. Non-pecuniary damage 157. The Court has established in its case law that non-pecuniary damage “may include both the suffering and distress caused to the direct victims and their next of kin, the impairment of values that are very significant to them, as well as changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victims.” However, since it is not possible to assign a precise monetary equivalent to non-pecuniary damage, for the purposes of full reparation to the victims, this can only be compensated through the payment of a sum of money or the delivery of goods or services, as determined by the Court, through the reasonable application of judicial discretion and the principle of equity. 156 158. Therefore, considering the circumstances of the instant case and the violations committed, the Court now establishes, in equity, the compensation for non-pecuniary damage in favor of the victims. Accordingly, the Court orders payment of the sum of USD$ 3,000.00 (three thousand United States dollars), for non-pecuniary damage in favor of each of the 65 victims listed in the Single Annex. The amounts established by the Court shall be paid within one year from notification of this judgment. G. Costs and Expenses 159. The Commission and the State did not present arguments on this point. The representative, in his final written arguments, requested that the State be ordered to pay costs, with an amount established in equity. 160. The Court has indicated that the claims of the victims or their representatives for costs and expenses, and the supporting evidence, must be presented to the Court at the first procedural opportunity granted to them, that is, in the pleadings and motions brief, without prejudice to those claims being updated subsequently, with the new costs and expenses 154 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of the Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 208. Cf. Case of the "White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 79, and Julien Grisonas Family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 23, 2021. Series C No. 437, para. 300. 155 156 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84, and Case of the Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 209. 42