indicated that 30% of each item corresponded to activities in this case. Consequently, and owing to the inconsistencies between the amounts requested and the amounts substantiated, the Court establishes, in equity, the sum of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars), that must be delivered to CEJIL. 499. In the case of MUDHA and GARR, these organizations asked the Court to establish, in equity, the amount corresponding to costs and expenses and did not present vouchers to justify the alleged disbursements, but merely listed them. The Court considers that the case file reveals that the two organizations carried out various procedural activities, both in the domestic jurisdiction and before the organs of the inter-American system during the processing of this case. Consequently, the Court establishes, in equity, the sum of US$3,000.00 (three thousand United States dollars) to be delivered to MUDHA and the sum of US$3,000.00 (three thousand United States dollars) to be delivered to GARR. 500. With regard to the Human Rights Clinic of Columbia University, the Court establishes, in equity, the sum of US$3,000.00 (three thousand United States dollars) to be delivered to this Clinic. 501. At the stage of monitoring compliance with this Judgment, the Court may order the State to reimburse the victims or their representatives for subsequent reasonable and duly substantiated expenses. 509 E) Reimbursement of expenses to the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund 502. In 2008, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States established the Legal Assistance Fund of the inter-American human rights system, “in order to “facilitate access to the inter-American human rights system by persons who currently lack the resources needed to bring their cases before the system.” 510 In this case, the Orders of the President of March 1 and September 6 and 11, 2013 (supra paras. 10 and 12) authorized access to the Legal Assistance Fund to cover the reasonable and necessary expenses that consisted in: (i) purchase of plane tickets for Willian Medina Ferreras, Bridget Frances Wooding and Carlos Enrique Quesada Quesada; (ii) a per diem to cover accommodation and meals in Mexico City D.F., on October 7, 8 and 9, 2013, for the first two, and on October 7 and 8, 2013, for the third, as well as these expenses for Mr. Medina Ferreras in the Dominican Republic, and (iii) airport expenses for these three persons. 503. In a note of the Secretariat dated January 31, 2014, the State was given the procedural opportunity to present its observations on the disbursements made in application of the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund, but did not submit them during the time granted for this purpose. 511 3613, 3619, 3620, 3621, 3623, 3624, 3625, 3626, 3627, 3628, 3649, 3650, 3651, 3655, 3659, 3668, 3670, 3671, 3674, 3678, 3680 and 3682); and also expenses included in the table of expenditures that are not properly justified: f. 3569 (communication and administrative expenses). 509 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 291, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, para. 454. 510 AG/RES. 2426 (XXXVIII-O/08), Resolution adopted by the thirty-eighth General Assembly of the OAS, during the fourth plenary session, held on June 3, 2008, “Creation of the Legal Assistance Fund of the InterAmerican Human Rights System,” operative paragraph 2(b), operative paragraph 2(a), and CP/RES. 963 (1728/09), Resolution adopted by the OAS Permanent Council on November 11, 2009, “Rules of Procedure for the Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Human Rights System,” article 1(1). 511 However, in its observations on the annexes presented as evidence by the representatives together with their final written arguments, the State presented “objections” with regard to some vouchers related to the expenses paid by the Victims’ Fund. In this regard, when establishing the amount disbursed in application of the 154