appropriate to order economic reparations. It does consider it reasonable to believe that the violations to personal liberty and to judicial guarantees caused non-pecuniary damage. Because of this, the Court considers it reasonable to order, in equity, the payment of USD $25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand United States dollars) as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by Mr. Carranza. E) Costs and expenses 110. The representative asked the Court to order the State to pay the “fees [...] for all the years the case has taken.” He asked that those fees be “set” by the Court. 111. The State asked the Court to refrain from ordering this measure or, if it does, to determine a reasonable amount. 112. The Court reiterates that, pursuant to its case law, 68costs and expenses are part of the concept of reparation in all cases in which the efforts of the victims in seeking justice, both nationally and internationally, entail expenditures that must be compensated for when the international responsibility of the State is declared. The Court is responsible for prudently assessing the scope of this reimbursement for costs and expenses, taking into consideration the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of international jurisdiction with respect to the protection of human rights. This assessment can be done on the basis of the principle of equity and taking into consideration the expenses declared by the parties, provided the amounts are reasonable. 113. In the present case, the Court observes that the representative did not mention or provide evidence for expenses incurred. His request was that the Court “set” his professional fees. This request is inconsistent with the practice of this Court, which orders the reimbursement of costs and expenses actually incurred, even, as the case may be, those produced by the payment of sums of money by the victims to their representatives or to professionals for their services. Furthermore, when the representative was notified of the submission of the case, he was informed that “the eventual reimbursement of costs and expenses will be carried out on the basis of expenditures duly documented before the Court.” 114. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Court considers it evident that the steps taken entailed pecuniary expenditures. Therefore, considering it reasonable, it determines that the State must pay the representative the amount of USD $10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) for costs and expenses. Said amount must be rendered directly to the representative. At the stage of monitoring compliance with the present Judgment, the Court will be able to order the State to reimburse the representative for reasonable expenses incurred during said procedural stage. 69 F) Method of compliance with the payments ordered 115. The State shall make the payment for reimbursement of costs and expenses established in the present judgment directly to the representative of Mr. Carranza 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 Jenkins v. Argentina, para. 164. 68 69 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 19, 2013. Series C No. 262, para. 62, and Case of Jenkins v. Argentina, para. 165. 25