38 of sufficient evidence on the facts alleged by some victims, to which it is not able to determine them, and as a consequence, to associate many of the effects mentioned with the injury suffered due to the specific violations declared in this case. c.2.5 Final considerations of the Tribunal on non-pecuniary damages in this case 131. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court must recognize that the violations declared in this Judgment did produce non-pecuniary damages, as it is a fact of human nature that every individual who suffers a human rights violation experiences suffering.114 132. International jurisprudence has repeatedly established that the Judgment can constitute per se a form of reparation.115 However, considering the circumstances of the sub judice case, the Court finds it pertinent to establish an amount, in equity, as compensation for non-pecuniary damages.116 The Court consequently establishes an inequity compensation of US$ 1,500 (one thousand five hundred dollars of the United States of America) as compensation for non-pecuniary damages. This amount must be paid to each victim or to each victim’s claimant within one year as of the notification of this Judgment. D. Costs and expenses 133. As previously indicated by the Court on other occasions, costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparations enshrined in Article 63(1) of the American Convention.117 134. The Commission requested that “once [the representative has been] heard,” the Court order the State to “pay the costs and expenses that have been and are being incurred in the processing of this case both domestically and before the inter-American system.” 135. The representative indicated that “due to the impossibility of proving some expenses and with the purpose of simplifying the process and avoiding further burdening the important and sensitive work of the International Tribunal, it is requested that the just and equitable criteria of the Court [...] establish the sum to be reimbursed in this category.” 136. For its part, the State said that the representative’s “intention to not comply with the requirement to submit receipts and other documentation justifying the payment of this reparation is unacceptable. The Peruvian State indicated that the payment of costs and expenses is only valid if there are receipts, ticket stubs or other documentation that prove the expenditure was made in the context of this proceeding.” Thus in its final arguments, the State indicated that it “cannot accept the request made to the Court that it grant a lump sum without submitting any evidence demonstrating the expenses incurred [by the victims and the representative].” 114 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra note 23, para. 176. 115 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56; Case of Gomes Lund et al (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 17, para. 310, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 17, para. 260. 116 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al V. Perú. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Serie C No. 29, para. 56; Case of Gomes Lund et al (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 17, para. 310, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 17, para. 260. 117 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 79; Case of Gomes Lund et al (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 17, para. 312, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 17, para. 262.