violations declared in this case necessarily entail serious pecuniary consequences. Furthermore, the Court considers that, as a result of the violations that it has declared in this Judgment, it can be assumed that they produced serious non-pecuniary damage, because it is inherent in human nature that anyone who suffers a violation of his or her human rights experiences suffering.533 384. Based on the criteria established in this Court’s consistent case law, the circumstances of this case, the scale, nature and severity of the violations committed, the damage arising from the impunity, as well as the physical, moral and mental suffering caused to the victims, 534 the Court finds it pertinent to establish, in equity, for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, the amounts indicated below, which must be paid within the time frame that the Court establishes in this regard (infra para. 397): a) US$35,000.00 (thirty-five thousand United States dollars) to each of the victims of extrajudicial execution indicated in Annex “A” of this Judgment; b) US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) to each of the surviving victims of the massacre indicated in Annex “B” of this Judgment, and c) US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) to each of the other family members of the victims who were executed, indicated in Annex “C” of this Judgment. E. Costs and expenses 385. As the Court has indicated on previous occasions, costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparation established in Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 535 386. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to reimburse the corresponding costs and expenses. They requested the reimbursement of US$20,837.95 (twenty thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven United States dollars and ninety-five cents) to the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), for representation of the victims and their next of kin in the international proceedings as of 2000, which include travel, accommodation, communications, photocopies, stationery and mailings. They also presented a global estimate of the costs and expenses of the Oficina de Tutela Legal del Arzobispado calculated at US$120,000.00 (one hundred and twenty thousand United States dollars), owing to the investigative proceedings started in 1990, the measures taken before the judicial and prosecution instances, and the costs for representation and monitoring the case at the inter-American level. In their final arguments brief, the representatives updated the amounts with the expenses incurred in “for the production of evidence and preparation for and participation in the public hearing,” requesting an additional payment in favor of CEJIL of US$26,350.58 (twenty six thousand three hundred and fifty United States dollars and fifty-eight cents), and in favor of Tutela Legal del Arzobispado of US$6,090.93 (six thousand and ninety United States dollars and ninety-three cents). In brief, they requested a total of US$47,188.53 (forty-seven thousand one hundred and eighty-eight United States dollars and fifty-three cents) in favor of CEJIL and US$126,090.93 (one hundred and twenty-six thousand and ninety United States dollars and ninety-three cents) in favor of Tutela Legal del Arzobispado. Additionally, they asked the Court to order an additional amount for “future expenses” related to compliance with the judgment and the monitoring procedure. 387. The State affirmed that the amount of the costs and expenses requested by the representatives “exceeds the standard of precedents established by [the] Court.” It also noted 533 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 176, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 307. 534 309. Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, para. 109, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 535 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 79, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 303. 118