vitro fertilization technique is very low, both nowadays and at the time the Constitutional Chamber’s decision was issued.” In addition, it considered that “Joaquinita Arroyo and […] Giovanni Vega and […] Karen Espinoza and Héctor Jiménez […] had children conceived naturally, so that it is clear that they were not infertile,” and that “in the case of Grettel Artavia Murillo […], she also had a child who was born on July 27, 2011.” Lastly, the State denied the existence of a “causal nexus between the violations of which the State is accused and the work-related difficulties that some of the individuals supposedly experienced. Considerations of the Court 361. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that “it can comprise both the suffering and afflictions caused to the direct victims and to those close to them, the impairment of values that very significant to the individual, as well as alterations, of a non-pecuniary nature, to the living conditions of the victims or their family.” 512 Since it is not possible to assign a precise monetary value to nonpecuniary damage, it can only be compensated for purposes of the victim’s full reparation, by the payment of a sum of money or the delivery of goods or services with a measurable financial value that the Court determines in reasonable application of sound judicial discretion and based on equity. 513 362. Furthermore, the Court reiterates the reparatory nature of the compensation, the nature and amount of which depend on the damage caused, and, therefore, should not signify either the enrichment or the impoverishment of the victims or their heirs. 514 363. In the instant case, the Court recalls that the damage does not depend on whether or not the couples were able to have children (supra para. 350), but corresponds to the disproportionate impact on their lives of the inability to exercise their rights autonomously (supra para. 317). As revealed in Chapter VII, the feelings of anguish, anxiety, uncertainty and frustration, and the effects on the possibility of deciding their own, autonomous and independent life project, have been verified in these proceedings. Based on the suffering caused to the victims, as well as the changes in their living conditions and the other consequences of a non-pecuniary nature that they experienced, the Court finds it pertinent to establish, in equity, the sum of US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) for each victim as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. D) Costs and expenses Claims of the parties 364. Representative Molina asked the Court to order the State to reimburse the expenses incurred for the proceedings before the Court corresponding to US$60,000.00, because he “had to litigate it up until the judgment was delivered and taking into consideration also that the proceedings before the Inter-American Court are very complex, and even presume that experts on matters such as health, assisted reproduction, and psychologists must be 512 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 Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 284. 513 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 244, and Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic, para. 223. 514 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 79, and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 161.