190. In this regard, the Court has held that it is inherent in human nature that any individual who suffers a human rights violation experiences suffering and, therefore, non-pecuniary damage is evident.212 191. Nevertheless, considering the circumstances of the case sub judice and that the Court has no evidence to assess, other than the above-mentioned statement by the victim, the Court decides to order, in equity, that the State pay the sum of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) or the equivalent in national currency as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The State must pay this amount directly to Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón within one year of notification of this judgment. D. Costs and expenses 192. As the Court has indicated on previous occasions, costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparations established in Article 63(1) of the American Convention.213 193. The Commission asked the Court to “order the State […] to pay the costs and expenses that have arisen and arise from processing this case both in the domestic sphere and before the inter-American system.” 194. The representatives indicated that Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón “has had to incur significant expenditure to defend herself at the domestic and international levels from her illegal removal, mainly related to the professional fees of the lawyers who represented her in both the domestic administrative and judicial proceedings, and in the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission and [the] Inter-American Court.” According to the representatives, Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón has “had to incur costs […] such as: subpoenas, certified copies, notification expenses, courier expenses, international telephone calls, and mobile phone calls.” However, the representatives indicated that “it had not been possible to compile the proof of this information and, consequently, [they] were unable to provide support for the amount spent by [Mrs.] Chocrón [Chocrón] during the domestic proceedings.” Despite this, they indicated that the victim had spent Bs.8,000,000 (equal to US$10,521.00) on professional fees and Bs.850,000 (equal to US$531) on procedural expenses. Regarding the proceedings before the inter-American system, the victim had allegedly spent US$35,000 on professional fees,214 and approximately US$10,000.00 on procedural expenses. Subsequently, in the attachments to their final written arguments, the representatives forwarded documentation supporting some of the said procedural expenses in the proceedings before the Inter-American Court for a sum of approximately US$7,681.85. 195. For its part, the State argued that the “representatives of the […] victim had not provided enough evidence to prove the alleged expenses she incurred to cover what they classify as ‘procedural expenses’ under domestic law and under the interAmerican system […].” It added that, “[t]he Commission’s application itself recognizes that the State should only be obliged to pay the expenses that have been duly proved by the victim.” 212 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo, v. Venezuela, supra note 12, para. 176, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru, supra note 19, para. 131. 213 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C. No. 39, para. 79; Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v.. Peru, supra e19, para. 133, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 19, para. 140. 214 Cf. Proposed agreement on professional fees dated May 11, 2009, addressed to Mercedes Chocrón Chocrón, signed by Consultores Jurídicos (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, volume III, folios 1600 and 1601) 55