86 or non-pecuniary nature that they experienced, the Court finds it pertinent to establish a sum, in equity, as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.296 279. Based on the compensation ordered by the Court in other cases, and considering the circumstances of the present case, the status of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, as a girl child, when the events occurred, and the nature and seriousness of the violations committed, the sufferings caused to the victims and the way they have been treated, the time that has elapsed since the rape, the denial of justice, and also the alterations in their living conditions and other consequences of a non-pecuniary nature that they suffered, the Court finds it pertinent to establish, in equity, the sum of US $60,000.00 (sixty thousand dollars of the United States of America) in favor of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Moreover, given the suffering she experienced as a consequence of the facts of the case, particularly the uproot and imbalance to the family infrastructure (supra para. 139), the Court establishes, in equity, compensation of US $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars of the United States of America) in favor of Yenys Bernardino Rosendo. iii) Costs and expenses 280. As the Court has indicated on previous occasions, costs and expenses are included within the concept of reparation embodied in Article 63(1) of the American Convention.297 281. The Inter-American Commission asked that the Court “order the State […] to pay the reasonable and necessary costs and expenses that arise and have arisen from the processing of the present case that have been duly authenticated.” 282. In their written brief of pleadings and motions, the representatives asked that the Court to order the State to pay the following amounts for costs and expenses: i) the sum that the Court establishes in equity in favor of the victims, Mrs. Rosendo Cantú and her family for the expenditure incurred in the pursuit of justice and medical care; ii) in favor of CEJIL, US$$11,910.75 (eleven thousand nine hundred and ten dollars of the United States of America and seventy-five cents) for the expenses incurred from October 2007 up until the presentation of the brief of pleadings and motions and US$6,152.54 (six thousand, one hundred and fifty-two dollars of the United States of America and fiftyfour cents) for costs incurred after said date iii) in favor of “Tlachinollan,” US$3,517.14 (three thousand five hundred and seventeen dollars of the United States of America and fourteen cents) for the expenses incurred from April 2002 until the presentation of their final written arguments and US$23,584.05 (twenty-three thousand, five hundred and eighty-four dollars of the United States of America and five cents) for the costs incurred "in connection with the preparation and carrying out of the public hearing [as well as] costs incurred in the past by Tlachinollan, due to the fact that because of human error they were not added to [the] brief of pleadings and evidence”. Lastly, the representatives indicated that CEJIL incurred expenses for, inter alia, photocopies, stationery, and telephone calls for US$250.00 (two hundred and fifty dollars of the United States of America) in the case requesting the Court to set an amount to cover future expenditures related with the processing of the case. Finally, the representatives asked that the payment of these amounts be made directly on their behalf, which would contribute to the speed and efficiency of payments, given the reality of the victim and the potential difficulties for reimbursement. 283. In its observations to the attachments presented jointly with the final written arguments, the State observed that “some of the receipts for costs presented by the 296 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al., supra note 295, para. 56; Case of Radilla, supra note 36, para. 374, and Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 275 297 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria, supra note 220, para. 79; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 279, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 25, para. 254.