9 b) Concerning the amount of compensation for legal costs and expenses (supra 10(2)), the Court already stated clearly in its judgment that the specific payments ordered include those for professional fees (supra 29, Operative point 4); c) In connection with economic earnings lost by Mr. Cesti as a consequence of the violation of his rights as a shareholder and functionary of the firm Top Security Asesores y Corredores de Seguros, S.A. (supra 10(3)), including the dividend for participation as a shareholder, the Court also decided that the parties should resort to national legislation applicable in this matter6; d) The Court itself stated in paragraphs 46 and 47 of its judgment on the merits (supra 28) that to fulfill reparation for material damages to Mr. Cesti (supra 10(4)), the respective petitions must be made by the interested party before the appropriate national authorities. It is they, in fact, who must decide whatever is pertinent, under the relevant Peruvian norms7. e) Steps conducive to compensation for material damages in favor of Mr. Cesti Hurtado must be taken before the Peruvian State for it, in good faith, to facilitate access of the victim to the relevant domestic legal procedures. In this regard, the Peruvian State has the specific obligation to receive, process and decide those claims as required by law and within a reasonable time. 33. Pursuant to the above, all reparations applicable to the instant case have been explicitly dealt with and specified. VII 34. For the aforementioned reasons, THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS pursuant to article 67 of the Convention and article 58 of the Rules of Procedure DECIDES: unanimously, 1. That the request for interpretation of the May 31, 2001 judgment in the Cesti Hurtado case, filed by Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado, is admissible. 2. That the request for a public hearing on the request for interpretation of the judgment on reparations made by Mr. Cesti is not in order. 6 In this regard, the Court has previously stated that pertaining to material damages, in the cases of survivors of violations of human rights, “the compensation should include, among other factors, the time that the victim remained unemployed”. Cfr. Suárez Rosero Case. Reparations. (art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 20, 1999. C Series No. 44, para. 59; Loayza Tamayo Case. Reparations. (art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. C Series No. 42, para. 128 and El Amparo Case. Reparations. (art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 14, 1996. C Series No. 28, para. 28. 7 Cfr. Ivcher Bronstein Case. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits. (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights), supra 4, para. 21.