138. In view of the violations declared in this judgment, the Court observes that the pecuniary damages are the result of the failure to fully execute the decision of September 12, 1992 and, especially, the non-compliance of the payment of the amounts established in favor of the sub-group of 2,309 workers by virtue of the Expert Report. The Court, therefore, considers that the measure of restitution ordered supra is sufficient to redress the pecuniary damages caused to the victims. E.1. Non-pecuniary damages 139. The Court has established in its case law that non-pecuniary damages “may include the suffering and distress caused by the violation as well as the the impairment of values that are highly significant to the victims, as well as non-monetary alterations in their living conditions.” Since it is not possible to assign a precise monetary equivalent to non-pecuniary damages, the victims, to be integrally redressed, can only be compensated by a monetary payment or by the assignment of goods or services that can be assessed monetarily, as prudently determined by the Court, applying judicial discretion and the principle of equity.149 140. The Court has determined that the State is responsible for violating the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection for having infringed a reasonable time with regard to the victims listed in Annex I of this judgment, as well as for the ineffectiveness of the execution of the decision with regard to a sub-group of workers listed in Annex II of this judgment. The Court also determined that the State did not comply with its duty to guarantee the right to private property and to the right to work to the detriment of all the victims. The Court, thus, considers that the uncertainty, anguish and suffering caused to the victims of this case, as a consequence of the delayed or failed compliance with the decision of February 12, 1992, merits compensation for non-pecuniary damages in equity. 150 141. The Court notes that, although it has been determined in this chapter that the persons belonging to the sub-group of 2,309 workers listed in Annex II who obtain restitution by the order to pay the amounts subsequently claimed (supra para. 125), the remaining group that decided not to continue to judicially pursue that claim lack such compensation. The Court has referred to the dilatory attitude of the State domestically (supra para. 102), which led many of the victims to abandon their claims due to the fatigue of a prolonged litigation at their advanced age and to the delay in complying with the decision of 1992. The Court bears this in mind when it sets the corresponding compensation for non-pecuniary damages and, therefore, orders, in equity, as nonpecuniary damages, the payment of USD 4,000.00 (four thousand United States dollars) to each person listed in Annex II of this judgment and USD 7,000.00 (seven thousand United States dollars) to each person listed in Annex III of this judgment, those who did not continue their pecuniary claims and who, therefore, are not beneficiaries of the measure of restitution mentioned supra. The State shall make the payment of these amounts immediately and in a period of no more than eight months from notification of this judgment. F. Costs and expenses 142. The Court observes that none of the representatives made an allegation or specific petition regarding this area in their respective briefs with petitions and motions. The Court, however, notes that the representative Meneses Huayra requested in her final written arguments the reimbursement of the costs and expenses incurred “at the domestic as well as the international jurisdiction during Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 84 and Case of the Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, supra, para. 157. 150 Cfr. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller”) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, para. 133 and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, paras. 266 and 267. 149 35