document states that Mr. Cortez’s deprivation of liberty caused “very serious harm” to his “life plans” and “serious harm to [his] work activities.” 161 On this matter, Mr. Cortez stated that “being detained caused me to lose my [aviation technician] license, which ended my career in aviation. That was my strength, working in aviation.” Furthermore, as has been stated (supra para. 182), the expert Coba Mejía referred to the stigmatization people can experience when they are detained in connection with a criminal trial. It is thus appropriate to order compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered. Accordingly, the Court sets, in equity, for non-pecuniary damage, compensation of USD 25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand dollars). Moreover, related to the non-pecuniary damage suffered, and as a measure of rehabilitation (supra para. 172), Mr. Cortez is awarded USD 6,000.00 (six thousand dollars). The State shall pay Mr. Cortez, as reparation for the non-pecuniary damage he suffered, a total of USD 31,000.00 (thirty-one thousand dollars). F. Costs and expenses 185. The representatives requested a payment in equity for costs and expenses that takes into account their estimate that they spent an average of USD 5,000.00 (five thousand dollars) per year of litigation of the case (nationally and internationally). 162 186. The State maintained that no costs or expenses should be covered because the CDHPUCE allegedly indicated that it represents Mr. Cortez at no cost, and furthermore, “in this case no hearings were held before the C[ommission] that could have generated expenses.” 187. The Court notes that the representatives did not provide documentation of expenses. It is reasonable to assume, however, that the national and international litigation of the case involved some expenditures that should be covered. Accordingly, this Court establishes the amount of USD 15,000.00 (fifteen thousand dollars), in equity, for costs and expenses. This amount shall be paid by the State to the representatives. At the stage of monitoring compliance with this judgment, the Court will be able to order the state to reimburse the victims or their representatives for reasonable expenses incurred during that procedural stage. 163 G. Reimbursement of expenses to the Victims' Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Court 188. In 2008, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States created the Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Human Rights System “to facilitate access to the inter-American human rights system by persons who currently lack the resources needed to bring their cases before the system.” 164 189. On July 12, 2022, the Court Secretariat sent the State a report on disbursements made to the Victims' Legal Assistance Fund in this case, amounting to USD 80.46 (eighty 161 National Police of Ecuador. National Directorate of Judicial Police and Investigations. Forensic Psychological Report No. 2013-892. July of 2013 (evidence file, annex 6 to the Merits Report, folios 280–283). 162 They noted, however, in their pleadings and motions brief, that “during the relevant procedural stage,” they could provide details on the expenses incurred during the “international contentious proceedings,” and they requested that the acceptance of those details be authorized. 163 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 291 and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 196. 164 AG/RES. 2426 (XXXVIII-O/08), Resolution adopted by the 38th General Assembly of the OAS in its fourth plenary session, held on June 3, 2008, “Creation of the Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Human Rights System,” operative paragraph 2(a); and CP/RES. 963 (1728/09), Resolution adopted on November 11, 2009, by the Permanent Council of the OAS, “Rules of Procedure for the Operation of the Legal Assistance Fund of the InterAmerican Human Rights System,” Article 1(1). 41