79. The State, in its recognition of responsibility, asked the Court to "order pecuniary reparations […] based on a criteria of equity." 80. In its case law, this Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that this may include both the suffering and affliction caused to the direct victim and his family, and also the impairment of values of great significance for the individual, as well as the alterations of a non-pecuniary character in the living conditions of victims or their families.66 81. In its judgment, the Court found pursuant to the State’s recognition that Rufino Jorge Almeida was the victim of the violation of his rights to judicial guarantees, equal protection, and judicial protection. This Court has held that the nonpecuniary damage is clear, given that it is human nature that every person who experiences a violation of their human rights experiences suffering.67 82. Taking into account the circumstances of the case and in consideration of the suffering caused to the victim by the delay in granting the measures of reparation and the harm caused by the unequal treatment after having been the victim of State terrorism, the Court deems it pertinent to establish, in equity, the amount of US$20,000 (twenty thousand dollars of the United States of America) for nonpecuniary damages to the benefit of Rufino Jorge Almeida. G. Costs and Expenses 83. The representative asked that, when determining costs and expenses, this Court consider the honoraria for representation and support in the complaint, before both the Commission and the Court, establishing the amounts for them in equity. 84. The State, in its recognition of responsibility, asked the Court to "order […] the amounts for costs and expenses based on a criteria of equity." 85. The Court reiterates that, based on its case law, costs and expenses form part of the concept of reparation, because the efforts made by the victims to obtain justice, both at 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 based on the principle of equity, taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided that their quantum is reasonable.68 86. This Court notes that the representatives did not request a specific monetary sum for reimbursement of expenses and costs, nor did she provide the necessary supporting documentation for the totality of the expenses incurred. Consequently, the Court decides, on deeming it reasonable, to establish, in equity, the payment of a total amount of US$20,000 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 Olivares Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 186. 66 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 176, and Case of Maldonado Ordoñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 3, 2016. Series C No. 311, para. 149. 67 Cf. 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 Olivares Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 192. 68 21