134. Furthermore, regarding non-pecuniary damage, the Court has established that “it can include the suffering and distress caused to the direct victims and their next of kin, the impairment of values that are highly significant to individuals, as well as the changes, of a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victims or their next of kin.”130 135. In addition, the Court reiterates that, according to its case law,131 costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparation, since the measures taken by the victims to obtain justice, at both national and the international level, involve expenditure that must be compensated when the international responsibility of the State is declared in a judgment. As regards their reimbursement, the Court must prudently assess their scope, which includes the expenses incurred before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction as well as those arising during the proceedings before this Court, taking into account the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of the international jurisdiction for the protection of human rights. This assessment may be made based on the principle of equity and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided their quantum is reasonable. 136. The Court finds that the undertaking to compensate the victims, which includes the monetary reparation agreed by the parties in the friendly settlement agreement for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, represents a positive step by Honduras to comply with its international convention-based obligations. However, the Court observes that, under the agreement, global amounts were decided, without establishing specific amounts for each victim or the way in which they would be distributed. Consequently, taking into consideration the willingness of the parties to reach the said agreement and the mechanism for implementing it, the Court finds that the amounts agreed for both pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage and for costs and expenses should be duly determined by the compensation and opportunities trust fund and distributed to the victims, injured parties in this case, (supra para. 132), as well as the direct next of kin of the 89 deceased inmates who authenticate their capacity as beneficiaries of this case. 137. The State must comply with the obligation defined in paragraphs 86 to 90 of this Judgment to identify the beneficiaries of the reparation and must inform the Court, within one year of notification of this Judgment on the steps taken to fulfill this obligation. In addition, the benefits of the compensation and opportunities fund must be delivered to the injured parties and beneficiaries of the agreement within three years of notification of this Judgment. F. Means of compliance with the payments ordered 138. The State must pay the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and the reimbursement of costs and expenses established in this Judgment directly to the persons and organization indicated in this Judgment, within the time frames established in the friendly settlement agreement and decided herein, in the terms of the following paragraphs, and without any reduction for possible taxes and charges. 139. If any of the next of kin of the victims indicated in Annexes C and D should die before they have received the respective compensation, this must be delivered directly to their heirs, in accordance with the applicable domestic laws. 130 Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) supra note 83, para. 84, and Case of González Medina and family, supra note 13, para. 315 131 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of A 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 79 and Case of González Medida and family, supra note 13, para. 325. 37