order material compensation to the benefit of Mr. Gorigoitía. D.2 Non-pecuniary damages 81. The Commission asked that full reparations be provided for the nonpecuniary damage caused. The representatives asked that the damage be considered in its entirety. In this regard, they indicated that Mr. Gorigoitía’s family—comprised of his wife and three children—experienced the impact of the arbitrary process, in particular because of: i) the public shame of a crime committed by a member of the Mendoza Police, ii) transfer to the same place of detention intended for common prisoners, where he was visited for years, iii) disappointment with the criminal process, (iv) the end of his status as a police officer, and (v) the health problems as a result of a stroke suffered in January 2017. Therefore, they asked the Court to set nonpecuniary damages at USD 40,000.00 (seventy thousand dollars of the United states of America). The state objected to all the pecuniary reparations requested, arguing that they did not follow the criterion of reasonableness, were exorbitant, and were not supported by reliable evidence. 82. The Court has established in its case law that nonpecuniary damage “may include both the suffering and distress caused to victims and the impairment of values that are highly significant to them, as well as suffering of a nonpecuniary nature that affects their living conditions.” Furthermore, since it is not possible to assign a precise monetary value to nonpecuniary damage, for the purposes of making integral reparation to the victims, compensation may only be provided through the payment of a sum of money or through the delivery of goods and services that can be assessed monetarily, as prudently determined by the Court, applying judicial discretion and the principle of equity.103 Taking into account the statements made by the representatives, as well as what was stated by Mr. Gorigoitía at the public hearing, who is the only victim in this case, the Court deems it pertinent to order, in equity, the payment of USD 30,000.00 (thirty thousand United states dollars) to Mr. Gorigoitía as nonpecuniary damages. E. Costs and Expenses 83. The representatives requested the payment of USD 5,000.00 (five thousand dollars of the United states of America) for expenses, taking into account the travel, lodging, and litigation expenses incurred over 20 years. In this regard, they stated that they lacked the documentation to justify these expenses. Additionally, they asked the state for the payment of USD 25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand dollars of the United States of America) for the professional fees of the attorneys Carlos Varela Álvarez, Pablo Donnángelo, and Alejandro Acosta. The state objected to the amounts sought, calling them disproportionate, exorbitant, and unjustified. The state also highlighted that no justification of them was provided. 84. The Court reiterates that, based on its case law,104 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 made based on the principle of equity and taking into account the 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 Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 10, 2019. Series C No. 376, para. 114. 104 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 Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2018. Series C No. 368, para. 342. 103 24