36 d) As for costs and expenses, the State’s position was that “it would be unwise to enter into any discussion of the amounts that the representatives of the alleged victim list” as costs. No judgment has as yet been delivered finding the Argentine Republic responsible or ordering it to pay costs. It asked the Court to evaluate carefully the specific scope of the costs, and to consider whether those costs had been duly shown and the circumstances of the specific case, on an equitable and reasonable basis. The Court’s observations 70. The Court found that the State violated Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. José María Cantos, by virtue of the fact that he was ordered to pay approximately 140,000,000.00 pesos (one hundred forty million pesos, equal to the same amount in United States dollars) as a filing fee, a fine for nonpayment of the filing fee, attorneys fees, fees for the participating experts, as well as interest, all as a consequence of the suit litigated before the Supreme Court. In application of Article 63(1) of the Convention, the State shall: a. Refrain from charging Mr. José María Cantos the filing fee and the fine levied for failure to pay the filing fee on time. b. Set a reasonable amount for the regulated honoraria in Argentine Supreme Court case C-1099, as stipulated in paragraph 74. c. Pay the fees and costs of all the experts and attorneys representing the State and the Province of Santiago del Estero, under the terms established in the preceding point. d. Lift the attachments, general encumbrances and other measures that, in order to guarantee payment of the filing fee and the regulated honoraria were ordered against the property and business activities of Mr. José María Cantos. 71. In keeping with the jurisprudence constante of international American Court considers that a judgment in the victim’s favor process that in some measure upholds that victim’s claims is satisfaction.112 The Court believes that this Judgment is a type of 112 courts, the Interat the end of a itself a type of satisfaction. The Cf. Trujillo Oroza Case, Reparations, supra note 6, par. 83; Bámaca Velásquez Case, Reparations, supra note 18, par. 60; Cantoral Benavides Case, Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, par. 57; Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case, supra note 96 par. 166; Cesti Hurtado Case, Reparations, supra note 15, par. 59; The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, par. 88; The Panel Blanca Case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, par. 105; Ivcher Bronstein Case. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, par. 183; “The Last Temptation of Christ” Case (Olmedo Bustos y otros), supra note 104, par. 99; Baena Ricardo et al. Case, supra note 16, par. 206; Constitutional Court Case, supra note 8, par. 122; Blake Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 22, 1999. Series C No. 48, par. 55; Suárez Rosero Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 20, 1999. Series C No. 44, par. 72; Castillo Páez Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, par. 84; Neira Alegría et al. Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 19,