- 98 before the Inter-American Commission for US$429.60,393 and payment of airfares for Wong Ho Wing’s family between Los Angeles and Lima for US$4,905.55.394 Also, with his final written arguments, the representative provided evidence corresponding to the payment of legal advisory services in the amount of S/.12,500.00,395 payment of US$2,000.00 for a psychological opinion,396 and payment of S/.1,875.00 for the professional fees of the lawyer María Eugenia Zegarra.397 321. In addition, the representative submitted the receipt for sending correspondence from Mercedes Wong Alza to Wong Ho Wing’s wife and a certificate of a court surety bond. However, he failed to justify what this evidence related to;398 hence the Court has insufficient evidence to determine whether these amounts correspond to disbursements related to the proceedings before the inter-American system.399 322. Consequently, the Court orders the State to pay the representative, Luis Lamas Puccio, the sum of US$ 28,000.00 (twenty-eight thousand United States dollars) for costs and expenses.400 This amount shall be paid directly to the representative within the respective time frame established by the Court (infra para. 323). During the stage of monitoring compliance with this Judgment, the Court may decide that the State should reimburse the victim or his representative any subsequent reasonable and duly authenticated expenses.401 E. Method of complying with the payments ordered 323. The State shall make the payments of the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and to reimburse costs and expenses established in this Judgment directly to the persons American Commission on Human Rights in March and October 2010 (evidence file, folios 6210 to 6214). 393 Cf. Accommodation in Washington D.C. for Wong Ho Wing’s brother to take part in a hearing before the Inter-American Commission in March 2012 (evidence file, folio 6217). 394 Cf. Payment of airline tickets to Lima for Wong Ho Wing’s family (evidence file, folios 6218 to 6221). 395 Cf. Receipt No. 001047 for professional honoraria of the lawyer, Luis Alberto Lamas Puccio, dated October 3, 2014 (evidence file, folio 7110.2). 396 Cf. Receipt No. 000707 for expert psychological opinion dated September 22, 2014 (evidence file, folio 7087). 397 Cf. Receipt No. 001079 for professional honoraria dated October 1, 2014 (evidence file, folio 7075). 398 Cf. DHL service for correspondence between Mercedes Esther Wong Alza and Kinmui Chan on May 19, 2014 (evidence file, folio 7071). 399 In addition, the Court will not take into account the following evidence presented belatedly by the representative with the final written arguments: airfares in the name of Huang He dated May 22, 2010, from Lima to Los Angeles and June 6, 2010, from Los Angeles to Lima (evidence file, folio 7055); airfares in the name of Huang He dated May 23, 2010, from Los Angeles to Guangzhou, China, and June 4, 2010, from Guangzhou, China, to Los Angeles (evidence file, folio 7057); plane tickets in the name of Huang He Long dated May 25, 2011, to Lima, Peru, from Los Angeles (evidence file, folio 7058); plane ticket in the name of Huang He Long dated August 7, 2012, from Lima to Los Angeles and from Los Angeles to Lima; plane ticket in the name of Huang He Long dated June 18, 2013, from Lima to Los Angeles and from Los Angeles to Lima (evidence file, folio 7060); receipt for payment of October 29, 2008, to Rivera, Gervasi & Asociados for legal advisory services (evidence file, folio 7062); receipt dated December 28, 2010, for payment of professional honoraria of Luis Alberto Lamas Puccio for legal advisory services in 2010 (evidence file, folio 7063); receipt dated September 30, 2011, for payment of professional honoraria of Luis Alberto Lamas Puccio for legal advisory and defense services (evidence file, folio 7064); receipts for payments dated September 2 and October 2, 2013, to Consorcio Trial S.A.C. for legal advisory services (evidence file, folios 7065-7066), and invoices for sending correspondence from Lima, Peru, to the Inter-American Commission dated January 6, 21 and 30, February 17 and 29, March 6 and November 24, 2012, and March 30 and September 3, 2013 (evidence file, folios 7077 to 7085). 400 The amounts presented in Peruvian new soles were converted to United States dollars using the bank exchange rate in force at the time of the payment receipt. Cf. Ministry of Economy and Finance of Peru, http://www.mef.gob.pe/contenidos/ tipo_cambio/tipo_cambio.php 401 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas e Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 291, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (The Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 608.