153. The Court notes that the State has recognized the irregularity of the dismissals of the majority of the victims in this judgment and has adopted a series of provisions directed to repair them. Thus, 140 of the 184 victims have received a declaration of the irregularity of their dismissal by means of their inclusion in the National Registry. With respect to these persons, 120 have been repaired, while the reparation of 20 more is pending. 154. In view of the above, the Court orders that the State proceed, within a period of three months, to repair the 20 victims who were already included in the Registry and have not been repaired. With respect to the 44 victims120 who have not been included in the Registry, the Court orders the State to include them (supra para. 144) and to take the necessary actions so that, within a period of six months, they effectively accede, as they wish, to one of the options of reparation offered by the State for the revindication of their rights (supra para. 131). 155. Finally, the Court considers it necessary to set a compensatory compensation of the non-pecuniary damages suffered because of the declared violations. Taking into account the distinct aspects of non-pecuniary damages, the Court sets, in equity, the sum of USD 25,000 (twenty-five thousand United States dollars) that the State must pay, within one year, to each of the victims declared in this judgment. E. Costs and expenses 156. One of the representatives (the common intervenor) indicated that “he had not charged any amount for the services that he had been providing since 2000” and, therefore, the victims “do not have any evidence that would allow them to justify the expenses incurred during the proceedings.” Therefore, he requested that “the Court fix, in equity, the amount that the State should pay for the concept of costs and expenses in the litigation of this case.” 157. The State maintained that “the request of costs and expenses presupposes the presentation of the receipts and other documentation that justify the appropriateness of the reparation” and, thus, the lack of “documentation that sustains the expenses incurred for the proceedings before the inter-American system makes the claim unacceptable.” Nevertheless, the State indicated that “it reserved the right to question, at the appropriate time, the amounts and documentation that support the costs and expenses related to the proceedings.” 158. There is no evidentiary support in the record relating to the costs and expenses that were incurred during the proceedings of this case before the inter-American system nor did the request for costs and expenses mention a specific amount. Nevertheless, the Court considers that those proceedings necessarily implies monetary disbursements and so orders 120 It concerns the following persons: 1. Alicia Amelia Miranda Cruz, 2. Ana María Montejo Soto, 3. Andrea Rosa Bohórquez Romero, 4. Angelita Jeni Torres Novoa, 5. Benedicta Borjas Bustamante, 6. Carlos Fernando Mesia Ramírez, 7. Carlos Jurado Silva, 8. Cevis Heredia Denis, 9. Cristina Córdova Ancleto, 10. Edgar Reateguí Casanova, 11. Eduardo Sarmiento García, 12. Edwin Alfonso Espinoza Chávez, 13. Elva Rosa Castillo Arana, 14. Estela María Flores Silva, 15. Felicita Valenzuela Rodríguez, 16. Fermín Vicente Berrio Huane, 17. Gerardo Tejada Vargas, 18. Gloria Stella Rosa Bertalmio Bacigalupo, 19. Guillerma Romero, 20. Gustavo Raúl Sierra Ortiz, 21. Jacqueline Chong Acosta, 22. José Elías Flores Oyola, 23. José Ferreira Echevarría, 24. José Manuel Pacora San Martín, 25. José Rodríguez Incio, 26. Juan Urbano Palomino, 27. Lilia Norma Breña Pantoja, 28. Luis Alberto Ortiz Guarda, 29. Luis Gálvez Mendoza, 30. Manuel Arturo Gálvez Montero, 31. Marcelino Meneses Huayra, 32. María Solimano Cornejo, 33. Nelson Martín Loayza Bezzolo, 34. Pilar del Rocío Acosta Bardales, 35. Ricardo Dagoberto Sánchez Carlessi, 36. Richard Víctor Calderón Ocharán, 37. Rómulo Landeón Cotera, 38. Rosalía Carrillo Mantilla, 39. Rosario Teresa Zurita Gutiérrez, 40. Susana Isabel Mantilla Correa, 41. Hermógenes Tupac Yupanqui Ochoa, 42. Víctor Alberto Ángeles Cueto, 43. Víctor Jorge Salinas Patiño and 44. Wilfredo Mendieta Torres. 40