48 201. Regarding Vanessa Cantoral-Contreras and Brenda Cantoral-Contreras, the Court notes that since August 2004 and February 2006, respectively, they have been receiving psychotherapeutic treatment in the Lima Center for Psychosocial Care (CAPS),145 a nongovernmental organization affiliated to the Peruvian National Human Rights Coordinator, which provides psychological care to those affected by political violence. The expert psychological opinion given in the instant case stated that “it is extremely important that Vanessa continue her therapy, in this regard.”146 The expert psychological opinion also indicated that “since the exhumation of her father’s body and the Court’s hearings [Vanessa Cantoral-Contreras has] once again begun to suffer from insomnia […] she says that she does not want anything and feels lost.”147 202. The Court takes into consideration the reference in the expert testimony to the importance that Brenda and Vanessa continue to receive psychological treatment. In this regard, and taking into account the particular nature of psychological care, which implies the establishment of a relationship of trust between the psychologist and the patient, the sudden rupture of which could negatively affect the treatment and the results for the patient, the Court considers that, if Vanessa and Brenda Cantoral-Contreras wish, the State must provide the continuation of their current psychological treatment in the conditions in which they are receiving it at the date of this judgment, for the necessary time. In case they wish otherwise, they should receive the same psychological treatment as that provided to the other family members, according to the provisions of paragraph 200 of this Judgment. E) Costs and expenses 203. As the Court has indicated on previous occasions, costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparation embodied in Article 63(1) of the American Convention.148 204. The Court takes into account that the representatives of the victims incurred expenses during the domestic and the international proceedings in this case. The representatives requested that the Court, “when taking a decision on this item, consider the costs of legal advice and the expenses related to the lawyer’s participation in the hearing […], which included not only traveling to the seat of the Court, and the board and lodging of the lawyers [who intervened before the Court], but also the fees of [one of them].” The State indicated that “it will accept the reasonable expenses and costs that are authenticated before the Court and that are directly and necessarily related to the legal representation in the case.” 205. Even though, in this case, the representatives have not forwarded the Court any evidence to support their claims regarding costs and expenses, the Court considers, in equity, that the State should pay the sum of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States 145 Cf. certification of Vanessa Cantoral-Contreras’ appointments at the Center for Psycho-social Care, issued on April 17, 2006 (file of appendixes to the brief with requests and arguments, page 713); and certification of Brenda Cantoral-Contreras’ appointments at the Center for Psycho-social Care issued on April 17, 2006 (file of appendixes to the brief with requests and arguments, page 714). 146 Cf. Expert psychological report provided by Roberto Alfonso Gushiken-Miyagui on January 11, 2007 (file of preliminary exception, merits, reparations and costs, page 429). 147 Cf. Expert psychological report provided by Roberto Alfonso Gushiken Miyagui on January 11, 2007 (file of preliminary exception, merits, reparations and costs, pages 429 and 430). 148 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations (Art 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 79; Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations (Art 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 212. Cf. also Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina, supra note 8, para. 216; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 304; and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 8, para. 243.