74 E. Costs and Expenses 279. As has been signaled previously by the Court in prior opportunities, the costs and expenses are understood within the concept of reparations enshrined in Article 63(1) of the American Convention.284 280. The Commission requested the Court order the State “to pay the costs and expenses duly proven by [the representatives], taking into consideration the special characteristics of the present case.” 281. The representatives expressed that from the time the report was raised before the Commission until the measures carried out before the Court, the Chitay family and the representatives have incurred expenses that arise to the amount of, approximately, [US$10,000.00 (ten thousand Dollars of the United States of America)].” Also, they requested the amount of US$15,000.00 (fifteen thousand Dollars of the United States of America) for fees and US$6,200.00 (six thousand two hundred Dollars of the United States of America) for expenses related to the public hearing held in the present case. They added that to the “subtotal of pecuniary damage, six percent (6%) must be added for annual interest, calculated since the date of the facts until the moment of payment” and that “the total must be added the corresponding quantity of professional fees pursuant to that established in Decree [No]. 111-96 of the Congress, ‘Tariffs of lawyers, arbitrators, attorney generals, judicial authorities, experts, auditors and trustees.” 282. Previously, in their final arguments, they reiterated the request for US$10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars of the United States of America) for expenses, they requested the amount of US$458,189.00 (four hundred fifty-eight thousand, one hundred eighty-none dollars of the United States of America) for fees, and for future expenses they requested the sum of US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand dollars of the United States of America). Nevertheless, the representatives together with said brief presented several tables, in which they made a chart of said items. In the table corresponding to the expenses, they indicated the sum of US$13,911.00 (thirteen thousand, nine hundred eleven dollars of the United States of America) and, regarding professional fees, they presented two tables: one that indicated the sum of US$347,189.00 (three hundred forty seven thousand, one hundred eighty-nine dollars of the United States of America); and another that indicated the amount of US$357,089.00 (three hundred fifty seven thousand, eighty nine dollars of the United States of America). Finally, the representatives manifested that “they have not made a contract of agreement with the alleged victims related to the costs and expenses of litigation, nevertheless, the lawyer Astrid Odete Escobedo Barrondo, due to her exercise of the mandate, agreed to 10% for said exercise, and the lawyer Carlos María Pelayo Möller did not make any agreement for the exercise of the mandate.” 283. For its part, the State signaled that “it should not be condemned to pay the costs and expenses for the failure of the representatives to negotiate a friendly settlement.” The State, in its observations to the annexes issued by the representatives together with the final arguments, also presented its observations in three orders: expenses, professional fees, and future expenses. In the first place, regarding expenses, the State sustained, on the one hand, that the telephone expenses that the representatives tried to charge were unreasonable, and on the other hand, quantified the equivalent expenses as “excessive” for 284 Cf. Case Garrido and Baigorria V. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 27 of August of 1998. Series C. No. 39, para. 79; Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 376, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 296.