307. The State argued that “no form of pecuniary reparation for moral damage is owed to any of the alleged victims in the present case, since the State did not […] violate any right to the detriment of Mrs. Chinchilla;” and that, “at no time did Mrs. Chinchilla’s next of kin engage with the investigation process conducted by the Public Prosecution Service, with no record of any type of intervention or interest shown by the presumed victim’s next of kin to investigate the facts.” 308. As indicated previously in this Judgment, international case law has repeatedly established that the Judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation (supra para. 270). However, in its case law this Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that this “may include both the suffering and distress caused to the direct victims and their next of kin, and the impairment of values that are highly significant to them, as well as suffering of a non-pecuniary nature that affects the living conditions of the victims or their families.”376 Since it is not possible to assign a precise monetary equivalent to nonpecuniary damage, for the purposes of making integral reparation to the victims, they may only obtain compensation through the payment of a sum of money or through the delivery of goods and services that can be assessed monetarily, as prudently determined by the Court, applying judicial discretion and the principle of equity.377 309. The Court considers that, as a result of the facts of this case, Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval suffered physical and psychological effects during her confinement in the COF, particularly when the State authorities failed to adopt effective measures to mitigate the evident deterioration of her health. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to its case law and considering the circumstances of the instant case and the violations declared, the Court finds it pertinent to establish, in equity and as compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the sum of US$ 40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars) in favor of Mrs. María Inés Chinchilla Sandoval. 310. The compensation established in the above paragraph in favor of the injured party shall be paid directly to her children, namely: Marta María Gantenbein Chinchilla, Luz de María Juárez Chinchilla and Luis Mariano Juárez Chinchilla, in equal parts, within the period established for that purpose (infra para. 321). E. Costs and expenses 311. The representatives requested that the Court order the State to make “reparation to the victims and their representative[s] for all the expenses incurred in bringing the case before the Inter-American Human Rights System.” In their brief of final arguments, they noted that the total expenses amounted to Q. $919,011.10378 (equivalent to approximately US$120, 000.00 United States dollars). Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 84, and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, supra, para. 309. 376 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 53, and Case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 273. 377 The following items, described in Annex 8 of the representatives’ brief of final arguments, correspond to the total amount for costs and expenses (Q. $919,011.10): 378 1. Expenses for legal fees and actuarial study: Q. $804,011.10 (refers to “expenses for payment of professional fees to lawyers and the actuarial expert, who provided assistance and advice during the proceeding against the State of Guatemala.” 2. Legal costs: Q.$115,000.00 (specified as “legal costs and travel expenses in the proceeding before the Commission and before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” As justification, various receipts were submitted 94