48 expenses incurred by the parties, provided their quantum is reasonable.114 147. In this way, the Tribunal notes that the contract entered into on April 29, 1993 by and between Carlos Blancas Bustamante Law Firm and the Association of Discharged and Retired Employees binds the latter to the payment of a "Fix Fee" of US$ 2.400 (two thousand four hundred dollars of the United States of America) and a "Success Fee" of 10% of the sums to be restituted to each employee as a result of a favorable decision rendered in each case ". Furthermore, the Association undertook to “pay the expenses necessary for the processing of the case". Likewise, the Tribunal notes that the contract entered into by and between the Law Firm and the Association on May 21, 1999 binds the Association to the payment of a "Fix Fee" of US$ 4.000 (four thousand dollars of the United States of America) plus US$ 1.000 (one thousand dollars of the United States of America) in the case it would be necessary to file an "”Extraordinary Appeal” (appeal after judgment) before the Constitutional Court of Perú. At the same time, it ratifies the undertakings of the contract entered into in the year 1993 regarding the payment of a “Success Fee” and the expenses incurred in the processing of the case. 148. Furthermore, the Court notes that the representative provide an itemization of the expenses incurred by CEDAL as the result of its advisory and legal activities in the proceeding instituted before the Inter-American system; but no evidence to support such expenses has been tendered together with the brief of pleadings and motions. In this sense, by means of letters to the Secretariat of the Tribunal of March 11 and 30, 2009 and May 29, 2009, the representative was requested to forward the receipts and evidence related to the costs and expenses mentioned in Appendix 5 of the brief of pleadings and requests (supra paras. 10 and 11). On June 17, 2009 the representative indicated that it had sent a “list of expenses” by post and on June 22 and 23, 2009 it presented the appendixes mentioned in said communication by electronic mail. The Court established a time limit until June 29, 2009 for the State and the Commission to present the observations thereto. On June 30, 2009 the State presented the respective observations, in which it objected to the amount requested by the representative as reimbursement of costs and expenses. By the time of the delivery of this Judgment, the Tribunal has still not received the observations of the Commission. 149. Hence, the Tribunal considers that the itemization and other evidence forwarded by the representative bear no connection to the instant case as to the accommodation, transportation, and communication expenditure mentioned.115 Nevertheless, the Tribunal can verify that the representative incurred in expenses related to the processing of this case before this Court, including the relocation of lawyers and witnesses from Perú to the seat of the Court in San José of Costa Rica. 150. As a consequence, the Tribunal orders, in equity, the payment of US$ 20.000 (twenty thousand dollars of the United States of America) to the 114 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria V. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 82; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 243; and Case of Ticona Estrada V. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 179. 115 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria, supra note 114, para. 80; Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 13, note 219; and Case of Perozo et al., supra note 13, para. 419.