267. The Commission asked the Court to “order the State to pay the costs and
expenses duly proven” by the injured party.
268. The representatives asked that “the victims be granted additional compensation
for the costs and expenses of the litigation at the domestic and international levels”
estimated at US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars).
269. The State indicated that “the expenses in these proceedings must be determined
by the express decision of the Court, which, […] if it rejects the application, […] must
also reject any claim for the reimbursement of expenses and honoraria.”
270. The Court has indicated that, “the claims of the victims or their representatives
regarding costs and expenses, together with the supporting evidence, must be
submitted to the Court at the first procedural opportunity granted to them, that is in the
pleadings and motions brief; notwithstanding the fact that this claim may be updated
later, in keeping with the new costs and expenses incurred during the processing of the
case before this Court.”287 Regarding the reimbursement of costs and expenses, the
Court must estimate their scope prudently; they includes the expenses incurred before
the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, as well as those incurred during these
proceedings before the inter-American system, taking into account the circumstances of
the specific case and the nature of the international jurisdiction for the protection of
human rights. This assessment may be made based on the principle of equity and taking
into account the expenses reported by the parties, provided the amount is reasonable.288
271. In this case, the Court observes that the representatives did not submit any
evidence with regard to the amount of the costs and expenses that they and the victims
may have incurred during the processing of the instant case.
272. However, as it has in other cases, the Court can infer that the representatives
incurred expenses while processing the case before the inter-American human rights
system. Taking this into account, and given the lack of vouchers for these expenses, the
Court establishes, in equity, that the State must pay a total of US$15,000.00 (fifteen
thousand United States dollars) or its equivalent in Uruguayan currency for costs and
expenses incurred in the litigation of this case. The Court notes that the representatives
did not indicate who should be reimbursed for the costs and expenses. In this regard,
the Court finds that the State must deliver that amount in equal parts, to Alicia Barbani
Duarte and María del Huerto Breccia, representatives of the majority of the victims
before this Court. Also, it indicates that, during the proceeding to monitor compliance
with this judgment, it may order that the State reimburse the victims or their
representatives for the reasonable expenses incurred during that procedural stage.
C.
Means of compliance with the payments ordered
273. The State must pay the compensation for non-pecuniary damage and
reimbursement of costs and expenses established in this judgment directly to the
286
Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria vs. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998.
Series C. No. 39, para. 79; Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 12, para. 229, and Case of
López Mendoza v. Venezuela, supra note 12, para. 236.
287
Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador, supra note 23, para. 275; Case of Torres
Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra note 18, para. 197, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note
12, para. 233.
288
Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina, supra note 286, para. 82; Case of Contreras et al. v.
El Salvador, supra note 12, para. 232, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela, supra note 12, para. 241.
93