to Ms. Francisca Mercedes Vera Valdez in the period set by the Court for this purpose. (infra paras. 146 and 147). 137. Likewise, it was fully proven in this Judgment that Ms. Francisca Mercedes Vera Valdez suffered anguish and pain due to the medical negligence experienced by her son while he was in permanent detention with a gunshot wound, the death of her son under State custody, and the subsequent denial of justice in relation to the facts (supra paras. 101 to 105). In this regard, the Court highlights that the civil, criminal, or administrative action were barred by the statute of limitations in this case, given that the investigation of the facts ex officio was an obligation of the State. Given the aforementioned, the Court deems it pertinent to establish a sum, in equity, of US$ 20,000.00 (twenty thousand dollars of the United States of America) in favor of Ms. Francisca Mercedes Vera Valdez, as compensation for nonpecuniary damage, in the period set by the Court for this purpose. (infra para. 145). E. Other claims for reparation 138. The Commission requested the Court to order the State to “adopt all the legal, administrative, and other measures necessary to assure that the persons deprived of liberty have timely access to the medical services that they may require pursuant to their health condition.” On his behalf, the representative asked the Court to order the State to “create a public policy that allows access to healthcare for persons deprived of liberty;” a “[s]anitary policy in prisons […] included in the national public health policy […] to which it corresponds;” “[t]hat the inmates have access to health services offered in the country without any discrimination based on their legal status;” “[t]hat inmates benefit from the medical, surgical, and psychiatric care required[,] including those available in a free society,” and “to provide the detention centers with medicine and the right equipment to prevent and treat the illnesses of persons deprived of liberty.” 139. In this Judgment, the Court noted that there was insufficient evidence on the prison conditions at the time of the facts alleged in the present case, and that the alleged current conditions of the prison system do not form part of the factual basis at hand. (supra paras. 31, 33, and 81). Therefore, it is inappropriate for the Court to refer to the reparations requested by the Commission and representatives in this regard. F. Costs and expenses 140. As indicated by the Court in prior occasions, the costs and expenses are consolidated under the concept of reparations enshrined in Article 63(1) of the American Convention.134 134 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria V. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C. No. 39, para 79; Case of Salvador Chiriboga V. Ecuador, supra note 118, para. 132, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú, supra note 7, para. 133. 51