7 of the judgment, since Mr. Cesti’s opinion that the determination of material damages cannot take longer than the six months, contradicts the judgment of the Court. * * * Observations of the Court 27. It follows from the pleadings of the parties that it is suitable for the Court to determine the scope of the State’s obligation to repair the material damages derived from its violation of the rights of Mr. Cesti Hurtado, under the terms of the May 31, 2001 judgment. 28. In the relevant paragraphs of the judgment which this interpretation refers to, the Court decided 41. To determine the measures of reparation which are appropriate in this case, the Court will have as its basic reference the facts admitted as proven in its September 29, 1999 judgment. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, the victim and the State have contributed additional probatory elements which are significant to determine the reparation measures. The Court has examined other evidentiary elements and the pleadings of the parties and rules that the following facts have been proven in connection with Mr. Cesti: […] e) that [Mr. Cesti] incurred a number of expenses for professional fees of his representatives in the preparation, filing and processing of his case before the Peruvian authorities and the inter-American system […]; f) that his attorneys and other persons surrounding Mr. Cesti also incurred expenses, specifically in connection with trips to Costa Rica and the United States […]; […] 46. The Court takes note that the victim and the Commission have expressed that the violations in this case justify reparations to Mr. Cesti for material damages. However, given the specificities of this case and the nature of the reparations requested, this Court considers that they should be established through mechanisms set forth in domestic legislation. Domestic courts or specialized national institutions are knowledgeable on the type of activity carried out by the victim. Given the specificity of the reparations requested as well as the characteristics of commercial law and of the corporations and commercial operations involved, the Court believes that said determination should be made by the abovementioned national institutions rather than by an international human rights court. 47. Given the above, it is suitable to order the State to indemnify the victim for material damages caused by the violations declared in the judgment on the merits, taking into account, under the circumstances of the instant case, the usual components of material damages; and that, in accordance with relevant national norms, it set the respective amounts of indemnification, for the victim to receive them within a reasonable time. and in operative point one it decided 1. to order that the Peruvian State indemnify Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado for material damages caused to him by the violations declared in the September 29, 1999 judgment on the merits, and that, following relevant domestic procedures, it set the