E.3. Non-pecuniary damages 129. With respect to non-pecuniary damage, considering the circumstances of the instant case and the violations committed, the Court goes on to establish, in equity, the compensation for non-pecuniary damage in favor of the victim. Accordingly, the Court orders, in equity, the payment of the sum of US$ 15,000.00 (fifteen thousand United States dollars) for non-pecuniary damages in favor of Mr. Nissen Pessolani. F. Costs and Expenses 130. The Commission did not refer to this point. 131. The representative included this item in the calculation of the monetary compensation requested. However, the separate calculation of the amount of professional fees was estimated at USD$211,574.00 (two hundred and eleven thousand five hundred and seventy-four United States dollars) and that of "costs of previous lawsuits" at USD$6,154.00 (six thousand one hundred and fifty-four United States dollars). In the final written arguments he requested that the amount be established in equity. 132. The State claimed that in the calculation "no estimate is made, [nor] is there any accompanying proof or supporting documents." Both in its response and in its final arguments, it argued that "it has no international responsibility in this case and therefore does not accept that it should pay the costs of this international process, nor of the national processes." It added that Mr. Nissen Pessolani himself has indicated that his representatives "have not charged him a single cent in professional fees,” and that one of them is deceased, so that "Mr. Nissen Pessolani could not claim, in his personal capacity, the corresponding fees in his favor." Finally, it stated that the representatives "have not had a relevant or continuous participation,” nor "has Mr. Nissen Pessolani attached any document that would allow us to presume that he has incurred in the hiring of lawyers or expenses in the previous lawsuits." It is for these reasons that it considered that the amount requested "does not conform to a reasonable request for reparation, for which reason it should be dismissed in its entirety." 133. The Court recalls that, according to its case law, costs and expenses are part of the concept of reparation, as the activity carried out by the victims in their search for justice, both nationally and internationally, involves expenditures that must be compensated when the international responsibility of the State is declared through a condemnatory judgment. It is up to the Court to prudently assess the scope of the reimbursement of costs and expenses, which includes the expenses incurred before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, as well as those incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Inter-American System, taking into account the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of the international jurisdiction for the protection of human rights. This assessment can be made based on the principle of equity and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, as long as the quantum is reasonable.146 134. This Court has stated that "the claims of the victims or their representatives regarding costs and expenses, and the evidence supporting them, must be presented to the Court at the earliest procedural opportunity granted to them, that is, in the written 146 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, paras. Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador, supra, para. 166. 38