102 the next of kin of the victims, based on equity and as compensation for non-pecuniary damages, the payment of US $30,000.00 (thirty thousand dollars [of the United States of America]) for the next of kin of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco” entitled to the reparation. 374. The international jurisprudence has repeatedly established that the judgment can constitute per se a form of reparation.331 However, considering the circumstances of the case sub judice, the sufferings that the violations committed caused the victims in the present case, as well as the variation in their living conditions and the other non-pecuniary consequences suffered by the latter, the Court considers it appropriate to set, in equity, an amount as compensation for non-pecuniary damages.332 375. In attention to the compensations ordered by the Tribunal in other cases on forced disappearances of persons, and in consideration of the circumstances of the present case, the entity, nature, and seriousness of the violations committed, the suffering caused to the victims and the treatment they have received, the time that has gone by since the disappearance started, the denial of justice, as well as the change in the conditions of their lives, and the other non-pecuniary consequences suffered by them, the Court considers it appropriate to set, in equity, the amount of US $80,000.00 (eighty thousand dollars of the United States of America) in favor of Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, as compensation for the concept of non-pecuniary damages. At the same time, for the same concept, the Tribunal sets in equity the compensation of US $40,000.00 (forty thousand dollars of the United States of America) in favor of Messrs. Tita Radilla Martínez, Andrea Radilla Martínez, and Rosendo Radilla Martínez, each, in this concept. D3. Costs and Expenses 376. As stated by the Court in previous opportunities, the costs and expenses are included within the concept of reparation enshrined in Article 63(1) of the American Convention.333 377. The Commission requested to the Court that “[o]nce it has heard the victims’ representatives, it order that the State pay the costs and expenses duly proven by them[,] in attention to the special characteristics of the case.” 378. The representatives indicated that “[b]oth the next of kin and the AFADEM [Association of Relatives of Disappeared Detainees and Victims of Human Rights Violations] and the CMDPDH [Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights] have incurred in expenses during the search for justice and truth in the present case,” both at a national level and before the Inter-American Commission, along with expenses in the concept of “[r]ent, delivery of documents, telephone calls, and copies, among others.” Based on the aforementioned, they determined through two general lists that refer to annual expenses, the different expenses in which both organizations had incurred throughout the litigation of the case. 331 Cf. Case of 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. v. Brazil, supra note 64, para. 233, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 43, para. 100. 332 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru, supra note 331, para. 56; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 40, para. 184, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 32, para. 193. 333 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina, supra note 283, para. 79; Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 64, para. 255, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 43, para. 115.