50 193. The Court has established repeatedly that a judgment declaring the existence of a violation constitutes, per se, a form of reparation.151 Nevertheless, considering the circumstances of this case and the consequences for the victims of the violations that were perpetrated, the Court finds it pertinent to determine the payment of compensation, established in equity, for non-pecuniary damage in favor of the next of kin who are considered victims of the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof (supra para. 140). Consequently, the Court orders the State to pay the sum of US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars) to Iracema Garibaldi and US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) to each of the following victims: Darsônia Garibaldi, Vanderlei Garibaldi, Fernando Garibaldi, Itamar Garibaldi, Itacir Garibaldi and Alexandre Garibaldi. iii) Costs and expenses 194. As the Court has indicated on other occasions, costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparations embodied in Article 63(1) of the American Convention.152 195. The Inter-American Commission asked the Court to order the State to “pay the reasonable and necessary costs and expenses that are duly authenticated derived from processing the instant case in both the domestic sphere and before the inter-American system.” 196. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to pay the costs of processing the case at the domestic and international levels. They recalled that, even with free access to justice, Mr. Garibaldi’s next of kin incurred various expenses during the Investigation, including expenditure for telephone communications, correspondence, transport, etc. The State should pay these expenses that the family assumed while the Investigation was underway. 197. In their brief with final arguments, the representatives indicated that they had “incurred significant, but reasonable, expenses to provide [the victims] with competent legal services valued at US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) which included expenditure for travel, accommodation, lawyers, transfer of the lawyers [and of the] impoverished witnesses, photocopies, correspondence, telephone, fax, notaries, Internet [and the] international litigation proceedings.” They added that “the petitioner organizations represent Sétimo Garibaldi’s family as a pro bono service and therefore do not expect any payment from them[, consequently, they] requested a payment of US$45,000.00 (forty-five thousand United States dollars), which includes US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) as reimbursement for the expenses incurred for the application and US$25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand United States dollars) for fees for the time and work of their lawyers over the years of processing the case before the inter-American system.” 198. The State argued that none of the proceedings in the domestic sphere gave rise to expenses for the victims, because in both the criminal and civil sphere they benefited from free justice and the Investigation was carried out by the State, irrespective of the actions taken by private individuals. In this regard, it affirmed that neither the Commission nor the representatives presented vouchers for expenses at the opportune procedural moments. Consequently, it rejected the need to make reparation for costs and expenses. 151 Cf. Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 57; Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 233, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 14, para. 184. 152 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria, supra note 131, para. 79; Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 255, and Case of Perozo et al., supra note 14, para. 417.