188. The State pointed out that the Court cannot order a higher amount than that ordered in the case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador, in which the facts are similar to the instant case. On that occasion, the Court imposed the sum of USD$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars). 189. As for the reparations related to the facts that were not accepted and were disputed, the State asked the Court to reject such claims. It argued that for this type of compensation, the damage must be assessed on the basis of the specific circumstances of each person and, in this case, it was not alleged in the proceedings that the harm caused to the alleged victim was of a particularly intense level. 190. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that this 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 victim or his family.147 191. However, since it is not possible to assign a precise monetary equivalent to nonpecuniary damage, this can only be compensated, for the purposes of comprehensive reparation to victims, through the payment of a sum of money or the delivery of goods or services that can be estimated in monetary terms, as prudently determined by the Court, applying judicial discretion and the principle of equity.148 192. Therefore, considering the circumstances of this case in which Mr. Grijalva Bueno was subjected to a process of arbitrary dismissal and to military criminal proceedings contrary to judicial guarantees, as well as the other violations declared (supra paras. 147, 148 and 162), this Court establishes in equity compensation for non-pecuniary damage in favor of the victim. Accordingly, the Court orders, in equity, the sum of USD$75,000.00 (seventy-five thousand United States dollars) as compensation for non-pecuniary damage in favor of Mr. Grijalva Bueno. F. Costs and Expenses 193. The Commission and the State did not submit claims in this regard. The representative requested, in his observations to the preliminary objection and in his final written arguments, that the State be ordered to pay costs and expenses, in an amount set in equity. 194. The Court has indicated that the claims of the victims or their representatives for costs and expenses, and the evidence supporting these claims, must be submitted to the Court at the first procedural opportunity granted to them, that is, in the brief of pleadings, motions and evidence, without prejudice to those claims being updated subsequently with the new costs and expenses arising from the proceedings before this Court.149 Therefore, the request of the representative is untimely and must be rejected. 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 Guachalá Chimbo v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 261. 148 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 84, and Case of Fernández Prieto and Tumbeiro v. Argentina. Merits and reparations. Judgment of September 1, 2020. Series C No. 411, para. 137. 149 Cf. Article 40(d) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. See also, Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, paras. 79 and 82, and Case of Valle Ambrosio et al. v. Argentina. Merits and reparations. Judgment of July 20, 2020. Series C No. 408, para. 81. 147 47