6 21. The Commission, in turn, stated that the […] Court has established that Peru has breached the American Convention in this case, and ordered payment of monetary compensation. It is necessary for the domestic courts to intervene so as to execute the judgment in accordance with the parameters established by the […] Court. Those parameters necessarily include indemnification categories established by the […] Court, such as compensation for consequential damages and loss of income, lost profits, loss of future incomes, etc. The Commission respectfully requests that if such parameters were not sufficiently clear, the Court establish precisely the amount which must be paid by the State for material damages. It is not the role of the State to negotiate its responsibility as a victim at a national level, […] instead it must simply execute the judgment of the […] Court. 22. Furthermore, regarding the attorney’s fees, the Commission expressed its concern and stated that “[t]he judgment must bear some relationship to the criteria to determine amounts payable at a national level, but it must also bear a realistic relationship to the contract negotiated between the attorney and his client. Unwillingness to recognize the contract between the attorney and his client and to order payment to the attorney of what the applicant calls “symbolic fees” will reduce the filing of cases with the inter-American system to private attorneys willing to work pro bono, and other professionals carrying out their task due to their own interest and not for expected remuneration, which in [the opinion of the Commission] is not the result sought”. Pleadings by the State 23. In its October 5, 2001 brief, Peru stated that “merely reading of [paragraphs 41, 46, and 47 of the Judgment on Reparations] allows them to be understood in the usual sense of the meaning of their wording. Therefore, the State does not agree that there is a need to request their interpretation”. Nevertheless, as regards the more specific aspects on which Mr. Cesti has requested clarification (supra 10), the State agrees that a order of the Court is required, “since according to domestic norms, a petition by a party is necessary to initiate judicial action to determine the indemnification”. 24. The Peruvian State expressed that the ideal entity to determine the amount of indemnification is the Judiciary, since it is an independent power whose decision will be respected by the Government “if it were to face an application filed there by citizen Cesti Hurtado”. The State also stated that “within the procedure established for this purpose there is a conciliation stage, in which the parties have an opportunity to reach an agreement on the criteria to determine the amount of indemnification”, and that since there are important discrepancies between the parties regarding the criteria and the amounts of compensation claimed, said discrepancies should be heard in civil proceedings. 25. The Peruvian State added that […] it considers that both the amount and the very items claimed as material damages, cannot be unilaterally set by only one of the parties and that therefore a judicial proceeding is the appropriate mechanism set forth in domestic legislation to hear and decide this issue […] 26. Regarding expenses and costs, it argued that the Court already ordered their reimbursement and that the amount “includes professional fees, and no further claims should be made in this regard”. The State also considered that the process of indemnification may extend beyond the six-month period mentioned in paragraph 74