relationship to the case, or the specific percentage that corresponds to expenditure in this case. These concepts have been deducted, in fairness, from the calculation made by the Court. In addition, those expenses whose amount is not reasonable will be deducted from the calculation made by the Court. 411 403. The Court also considers that the item relating to the fees and travel expenses of members of the petitionary organization have not been justified reasonably, because they merely indicate the percentage supposedly dedicated to the case or meetings on “cases of historical claims,” without detailing or providing an exact justification of the specific relationship with the Herzog case. Consequently, the Court establishes, in equity, that the State must pay US$25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand United States dollars) to CEJIL for costs and expenses. 404. At the stage of monitoring compliance with this judgment, the Court may require the State to reimburse subsequent reasonable and duly authenticated expenses to the victims or their representatives. 412 H. Reimbursement of expenditures to the Legal Assistance Fund 405. The representatives of the victims had requested the support of the Victim’s Legal Assistance Fund of the Court to cover the participation in the proceedings of the persons summoned to testify by the Court. They asked for support to cover the expenses of air transport, accommodation and alimentation, and also notarial services for affidavits for presumed victims, experts and witnesses. In an order of the President of February 23, 2017, the request submitted by the presumed victims, through their representatives, to access the Court’s Legal Assistance Fund was declared admissible and the necessary financial assistance was authorized for the presentation of five deponents, either at the hearing or by affidavit. 406. On November 6, 2017, a disbursements report was sent to the State pursuant to article 5 of the Court’s Rules for the Operation of the Fund. The State was given the opportunity to present its comments on the disbursements, which amounted to US$4,260.95 for the expenses incurred. The State presented its comments on November 30, 2017. 407. The State objected to the item relating to the air transport to San José, Costa Rica, of expert witness Sérgio Gardenghi Suiama. Brazil observed that the flights financed for the expert’s participation in the hearing were: Madrid/San José (May 19, 2017) and San José/Bogotá/Río de Janeiro (May 25, 2017) and requested information on the reasons why the said flights had been chosen in order to resolve any doubts about the compatibility of the expenditure with the principles of article 37 of the Brazilian Constitution. 408. In this regard, the Court notes that, on April 28, 2017, the victims’ representatives advised that, owing to Sérgio Suiama’s previous commitments, this expert would have to travel from Madrid, Spain, on May 19, 2017, to take part in the public hearing on May 24, 2017. The representatives had therefore asked the Court to purchase the air ticket for that date, taking into consideration that the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund would only pay a per diem from May 22 to 25, as previously stipulated. In this regard, the Court had corroborated that the change in the flight would not represent a significant difference for the Victim’s Legal Assistance Fund and authorized this disbursement. The Court considers that the justification 411 Cf. Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 422; Case of Lopez Lone v. Honduras, para. 333. Cf. Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 331 and Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia, para. 213. 412 100