is human nature that every individual who suffers a violation of his human rights experiences distress.285 260. Consequently, the Court establishes, in equity, the sum of US$3,000.00 (three thousand United States dollars) as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. This amount must be paid to each victim indicated in the Annex to this judgment, or to the heir within one year of notification of this judgment. B.3. Other claims for reparation 261. The Commission “ask[ed] the Court to establish, in equity, the amount of compensation corresponding to indirect damage and loss of earnings, in exercise of its broad powers in this regard.” 262. For their part, the representatives asked that the State “pay an appropriate compensation for the damage suffered owing to the violations declared […] to the detriment of the victims.” According to the representatives, in this case “appropriate compensation” would be: i) “Restitution of all the capital deposited by each [victim] with the Banco de Montevideo that was in TCB certificates of deposit”; ii) “The damage caused by the years during which the legitimate owners of the savings could not use them, that being the lawful purpose of money,” and iii) “The devaluation of the dollar with regard to the Uruguayan peso between 2002 and 2011, which is approximately 50% of its value.” 263. According to the representatives, “[t]he foregoing is without prejudice to the provisions of article 31 of Law 17,613 relating to the recovery of the assets, which governed the Advisory Commission’s actions, and that the Court should understand are applicable to the case.” 264. Regarding indirect damage, the State asserted that “it is evident […] that the State’s lack of compliance alleged by the Commission does not, in itself, generate any direct and immediate effect on the victims’ capital, because the Commission does not indicate in any way that […] the victims are in the right on the merits of the matter.” With regard to loss of earnings, “it is very clear that the loss of any income or benefit is only constituted if the […] victims were in the right on the merits of the matter, and the Commission does not […] recognize this.” 265. The Court reiterates that it has not ruled with regard to the victims’ claims that they be granted the rights established in article 31 of Law 17,613, so that the requests for reparation by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives are not compatible with the violations found in this judgment. The Court has already determined that the measure that provides adequate reparation for the violations declared in this case is the one that allows them to present new petitions regarding the determination of the rights established in the said article 31 (supra paras. 248 to 251). B.4. Costs and expenses 266. As the Court has indicated on other occasions, costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparations established in Article 63(1) of the American Convention.286 285 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra note 15, para. 176; Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru, supra note 15, para. 131, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, supra note 218, para. 190. 92