81 D) Costs and Expenses Arguments of the Commission 245. The Commission indicated that, after hearing the representatives, the Court should order the State to pay the costs arising from the legal procedures undertaken by the alleged victims in the national sphere, and also those arising from processing the case at the international level before the Commission and the Court, which are duly authenticated by the representatives. Arguments of the representatives 246. The representatives indicated that: (a) They have a right to reimbursement of the expenses incurred for travel, translation costs, honoraria of experts, telephone calls, copies and also legal fees; (b) MUDHA has worked on this case since 1997, and has incurred expenses of US$4,513.13 (four thousand five hundred and thirteen United States dollars and thirteen cents); (c) CEJIL has worked on this case since 1999, and has incurred expenses of US$37,995.94 (thirty seven thousand nine hundred and ninety-five United States dollars and ninety-four cents); (d) The International Human Rights Law Clinic has devoted five years of the time of its personnel and students to this case, so they request reimbursement of US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars) as a symbolic amount for the expenses incurred, and (e) The amount listed for the expenses of the different organizations does not include those they will incur during the remaining procedure before the Court. Arguments of the State 247. The State requested the Court to condemn the “plaintiffs” to pay the costs and professional fees arising from this proceeding, based on the inadmissibility of their claim. Considerations of the Court 248. The Court has indicated that costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparation embodied in Article 63(1) of the American Convention, because the measures taken by the victims, their qualifying dependents or their representatives in order to obtain justice at the international level imply expenditure and financial commitments that must be compensated.122 For purposes of reimbursement, the Court 122 Cf. Case of Yatama, supra note 13, para. 264; Case of Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra note 16, para. 231, and the Case of Moiwana community, supra note 8, para. 222.