258. The State argued that, should the Court determine that violations were indeed committed, “the facts of this case would not, for any reason, warrant nonpecuniary damages subject to reparation by means of a sum of money.” The State held that “it does not deny the petitioners’ commendable efforts in protecting the environment, but pointed out that this matter is in now way under consideration in this case.” 259. The victims were carrying out activities on behalf of the OCESP, an organization of which Mr. Montiel Flores was a founding member. In his statement before a notary public, Mr. Cabrera García pointed out that OCESP consisted of around 45 people, and that they always met “[m]ainly […] to stop trucks carrying timber illegally, without a permit.” 356 At the public hearing held in this case, Mr. Montiel Flores also stated that “[since] 1995, [when a] foreign company […] came to Guerrero […] for excessive [timber] exploitation, [they] realized that this was a risk for all the region’s inhabitants and […] then beg[an] to get organiz[ed].” 357 260. International case law has repeatedly held that a judgment per se constitutes a form of reparation. 358 However, considering the circumstances of this case, the suffering caused to the victims of the violations and the denial of justice, together with the changes in their living conditions, and the other non-pecuniary consequences, the Court deems it appropriate to award compensation, in equity, for non-pecuniary damages. 359 261. Accordingly, the Court deems it appropriate to set, in equity, the sum of US$ 20,000.00 (twenty thousand dollars of the United States of America) in favor of each of the victims in this case, as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. E. Legal Costs and Expenses 262. As the Court has stated in previous cases, costs and expenses are included within the concept of reparation under Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 360 263. The Commission requested “the payment of reasonable and necessary costs and expenses, duly proven, which have arisen and continue to arise in the processing of this case.” 264. The representatives requested that the Court order the State to pay the following amounts: i) in favor of CEJIL, US$ 25,012.37 (twenty-five thousand and twelve dollars and thirty-seven cents of the United States of America) for expenses incurred since 2001 and up until the presentation of the brief of pleadings and motions, and US$ 17,803.72 (seventeen thousand, eight hundred and three dollars and seventy-two cents of the United States of America) for expenses incurred after 356 Cf. Statement rendered by Mr. Teodoro Cabrera García by affidavit, supra note 147, page 1192. 357 Cf. Statement rendered by Mr. Rodolfo Montiel Flores at the public hearing, supra note 177. 358 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. V. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 278; and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 282. 359 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and Costs, supra note 358 para. 56; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 278; and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 282. 360 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina, supra note 313, para. 79; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 280; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 284. 92