21 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances”)which includes a provision similar to that which was declared in the judgment on the merits to be in violation of the Convention (the only article in fine of the Law cited). The State declared that it [had] fulfilled all the commitments that it made in the hearing on the merits in April 1997, in that it not only modified the Law on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, but it also began an important process of change in the treatment of the convicts who took these substances. 87. With respect to the requests by the Commission and Mr. Suárez Rosero that the State be ordered to change its laws and internal policies, the Court deems it pertinent to reiterate at this time its declaration in the judgment on the merits in this case, that Ecuador is obligated, in accordance with the general duties to respect rights and adopt provisions under domestic law (Article 1(1) and (2) of the Convention), to adopt such measures as may be necessary to ensure that violations such as those established in the instant case never again occur in its jurisdiction. (Suárez Rosero Case, supra 79, para. 106) Therefore, contrary to that adduced by the State, the Court finds that the new law that has been brought to its attention does not constitute an appropriate measure to fulfill the judgment on the merits in the present case and reiterates that Ecuador is obligated to recognize the rights set forth in the American Convention to all persons subject to its jurisdiction, without any exception (Suárez Rosero Case, supra 79, Chapter XIV: “Violation of Article 2 [of the American Convention on Human Rights]”). XII COSTS AND EXPENSES 88. Both Mr. Suárez Rosero and the Commission made reference to the judgment on the merits in this case, in which, according to their arguments, the Court ordered Ecuador to pay the costs and expenses incurred by the attorneys in the proceedings before the Inter-American Court as well as before the domestic tribunals. In this respect, the Commission stated that “indemnization of expenses and costs should correspond to that which is reasonable in light of the circumstances. 89. During the public hearing, the State offered to make a payment of a total amount to pay the expenses of the representatives of Mr. Suárez Rosero and the expenses resulting from the processing of the present case. A) BEFORE THE DOMESTIC COURTS 90. As to costs in the domestic jurisdiction, Mr. Suárez Rosero requested the reimbursement of the costs and professional expenses, which he estimated to be approximately US$ 2,300.00 (two thousand, three hundred dollars of the United States of America). He stated, in respect to the expenses, that the Court “has recognized the difficulty of saving receipts and other documents in view of the living conditions of many of the families of the victims,” and has ordered the reimbursement of expenses in the past, even in the absence of their proof. For its part, the Commission requested that compensation be granted for “all the reasonable costs and honoraria of the attorneys which were incurred to procure