forge a career in the world of law, therefore, in the State's opinion, the supposed damage does not correspond to the professional trajectory that Mrs. Moya Solís alleges. 130. This Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage in its case law and has established that it can include both the suffering and hardship caused by the violation, as well as the impairment of very significant personal values, as well as adjustments of a non-pecuniary nature in the victims’ life.90 Additionally, since it is not possible to assign a precise monetary equivalent to non-pecuniary damage, it can only be compensation for the purposes of comprehensive reparation to the victim, through the payment of an amount of money or the delivery of goods or services having monetary value determined by the Court, in reasonable application of judicial discretion and in terms of equity.91 131. Based on the above, and taking into account the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the decision to remove Ms. Moya Solís from her post caused her non-pecuniary damage, therefore it establishes in equity the sum of USD $ 20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) for non-pecuniary damage. F. Costs and expenses 132. The Commission did not rule specifically on this matter. The victim requested that the State be ordered to compensate the expenses and costs incurred in processing this case. 133. The State argued that, according to the Court’s consistent case law, the payment of costs and expenses only proceeds if there are receipts, tickets or other documents that prove that the disbursement was made during the process. In addition, expenses and costs must be directly related to the case and the development of the process itself, with the understanding that all amounts presented for inclusion that are not directly related or linked to the specific case are excluded. 134. In this case, there is no evidential support in the file regarding the costs and expenses incurred by Mrs. Moya Solís in processing this matter before the Inter-American System. In addition, the victim did not specify a particular amount in her request. However, the Court considers that such procedures necessarily implied financial expenditures, for which reason it determines that the State must deliver in equity to Mrs. Moya Solís the amount of USD $ 15,000.00 (fifteen thousand United States dollars) for costs and expenses. It should be added that, at the stage of monitoring compliance with this Judgment, the Court may order that the State reimburse the victim or his representative for the reasonable expenses incurred in said procedural stage. G. Method of complying with the payments ordered 135. The State must pay the compensation ordered for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and the reimbursement of costs and expenses established in this Judgment, directly to Mrs. Moya Solís, within a period of one year, as of the date of the notification of this ruling. 136. In the event that the beneficiary dies before the respective compensation is delivered to her, these will be made directly to her heirs, in accordance with applicable domestic law. 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 Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 151. 90 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 84, and Case of Carranza Alarcón v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 3, 2020. Series C No. 399, para. 108 91 33