107 c) between December, 1996, and February, 1998: US$ 1,579,66 (one thousand five hundred seventy-nine U.S. dollars with sixty-six cents) for international telephone calls to the offices of the Justice and International Law Centre (CEJIL), to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, to the Secretariat of the Court, to the “ORIT” and to the “SITET.” Also for the transmission of fax messages and other items, international communications, and communication with international labour unions; and d) between September, 1996, and July, 2000: US$ 21,541.50 (twenty one thousand five hundred forty-one U.S. dollars with fifty cents) for trips to Washington, D.C., of Ms. Minerva Gómez, and Messrs. Manrique Mejía, and Rafael Lascano, to attend a hearing before the Commission; for a trip of Messrs. Rolando Gómez and Luis Batista to Washington, D.C., and for the trip of Messrs. Rolando Gómez, Fernando Gaona, and José Arosemena, Ms. María Sánchez, Ms. Lidia Marín, and Messrs. Alfonso Chambers, Salvador Vela, Francisco Chacón, and Euribiades Marín to San Jose, Costa Rica, on the occasion of the public hearings on preliminary objections and the merits, before the Court. Also, for expenses generated in the course of the operations required for the filing of the action with the Court. The Commission requested the Court that it orders the State to reimburse the total amount of US$ 39,051.85 (thirty nine thousand fifty-one U.S. dollars and eighty-five cents) to the victims and their representatives, for expenses incurred,. 197. Concerning costs, the Commission pointed out that, for legal services provided by Ms. Minerva Gómez for the preparation of briefs, the compilation of documents, participation in hearings and “lobbying” in international departments, she should be given the amount of US$150,000.00 (one hundred fifty thousand U.S.dollars). Arguments of the State 198. For its part, the State pointed out, in its replies to the application and final arguments, that although “it did not have, nor does it have the obligation to provide indemnification, as an act of good faith and willingness it has reinstated […] and consequently indemnified, an important number of workers among those dismissed” (This translator's version of the quotation.) It likewise drew attention to the fact that of the 270 dismissed workers, 143 were appointed again, some to receive the same salaries and in the same positions. Lastly, Panama requested that the Commission be ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding and for all expenses incurred in the exercise of its defence. 199. On January 24, 2001, the State submitted its observations to the Commission’s brief concerning expenses and costs (supra para. 56). In this respect it pointed out that a) it opposes the Commission’s request; b) the determination of costs and expenses was premature, since the payment thereof applies in the event of a sentence;