98 pecuniary alterations in the victim’s lifestyle conditions or that of her relatives.” 323 Likewise, it is necessary to consider the circumstances of the case sub judice, for the harm the violations inflicted upon the victims, given the profound effect the facts had on María Claudia García, particularly because of her state of pregnancy.324 In turn, particularly relevant is the change in their lifestyle conditions and the remaining non-pecuniary consequences suffered by Maria Macarena Gelman. Consequently, the Court establishes in equity and for non-pecuniary damages, 325 the amount of: a) USD $ 100,000.00 (hundred thousand dollars of the United States of America) in favor of María Claudia García de Gelman; b) USD $ 80,000.00 (eighty thousand dollars of the United States of America) in favor of María Macarena Gelman García. 297. The Court takes into account the expressed decision of Mr. Juan Gelman of being excluded as a beneficiary of compensation (supra para. 286). Nonetheless, the Tribunal recognized the profound harm that the facts of the case have had in his life, his incessant search for justice in Uruguay and Argentina, expressed in his active attempts in the investigations something that without a doubt has had a great economic impact, and has altered his and his family’s lives. D.3 Costs and expenses 298. According to the Courts jurisprudence, the costs and expenses are established within the concept of reparations contained in the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 326 299. The Commission requested the Court to order the State to make the payment of costs and expenses, duly proven by the representatives. 300. The representatives stated that CEJIL has acted as representative of the alleged victims and their relatives since the initial petition was filed before the Commission in May of 2006, having incurred from September of 2005 to this date, expenses which mainly focus on the process of investigating and gathering evidence, processing the case before the Commission and then later before the Court, including                                                          323 Case of of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 305, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 16, para. 255. 324 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 23, para. 160.b.v. 325 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. V. Perú. Reparations and Costs, supra note 312, para. 56; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 310, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 16, para. 260. 326 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 16, para. 312, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 16, para. 262.