process nor did he attend the interview, therefore it questioned the impact he may have suffered. It considered that the non-ratification did not frustrate his career as a lawyer, since the ban on reentry to the judiciary was lifted in 2006, and consequently, Mr. Valenzuela Cerna had the possibility of applying for a position in the Judiciary. 223. The Court has established in its jurisprudence that non-pecuniary damage can include both the suffering and afflictions caused by the violation as well as the impairment of very significant values for the individuals and any alteration, of a non-pecuniary nature, in the conditions of existence of the victims or their family. 186 Additionally, since it is not possible to assign a precise monetary equivalent to non-pecuniary damage, it can only be compensated, for the purposes of comprehensive reparation to the victims, through the payment of an amount of money or the delivery of goods or appreciable services in money, that the Court determines in reasonable application of the judicial discretion and in terms of equity. 187 224. In this case, to substantiate the non-pecuniary damage, Mr. Cuya’s representatives made reference to the emotional suffering undergone which manifested in anxiety, sadness, anguish, uncertainty and powerlessness in the face of the punitive system, expectation and frustration of not having been ratified in office, as well as the impairment suffered by the process to which he was subjected which prevented him from achieving the realization of his personal vocation. Mr. Valenzuela’s representatives made reference to the autonomous effects on psychological wellbeing and private life, being the object of stigmatization and discrimination by public officials, as well as the stress, suffering, frustration and uncertainty caused by the dismissals, and the emotional suffering due to the administrative and judicial proceedings. Regarding those allegations related to the victims’ emotional suffering, the Court will only take into account for the determination of non-pecuniary damage those related to the facts of this case and the violations declared in it. 225. Based on the foregoing and taking into account the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the decision to arbitrarily remove the victims from their office affected their rights to judicial guarantees, privacy, political rights, and judicial protection for which it sets, in equity, the sum of USD 20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) for non-pecuniary damage, for each of the victims, which must be delivered to Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy, Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna, Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado, and Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse F. Costs and expenses 226. In their brief of motions, pleadings and evidence, the representatives requested the payment of costs and expenses, as indicated below: Regarding Mr. Cuya: for the expenses of almost 17 years throughout the internal process and before the inter-American system. They argued that the expenses include the transport to the headquarters of the jurisdictional and administrative authorities, including expenses to travel to the headquarters of the Inter-American Commission in Washington, D.C. They alleged the following expenses: USD 3,306.00 (three thousand three hundred six United States dollars) for the purchase of airline tickets; USD 2,352.00 (two thousand three hundred fifty-two United States dollars) for the expert accounting opinion to determine the loss of profits, and USD 274.06 (two hundred and seventy-four United States dollars and six cents) for miscellaneous expenses for copies, authentications and legalization of signatures, tariffs, shipments by courier. In addition, they considered that, by adding the other items such as courier, photocopying, legal advice and food to the expenses and fees, increase the amount to the final sum of USD 30,000.00 (thirty thousand a) 186 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84, and Case of Garzón Guzmán v. Ecuador, supra, para. 96. 187 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 84, and Case of Bedoya Lima v. Colombia, supra, para. 206. 56