56 228. On several occasions, the Court has established that the alleged victim, his next of kin or his representatives may invoke rights and claims that differ from those contained in the Commission’s application, based on the facts presented by the Commission.172 On this point, the Court has indicated that it is not possible to allege new facts that differ from those described in the application, although facts may be submitted that explain, clarify or reject those mentioned in the application or answer the plaintiff’s claims.173 The foregoing does not imply a modification of the purpose of the application or infringe or violate the State’s right of defense, since the State is granted procedural opportunities to respond to the allegations of the Commission and the representatives at all stages of the proceedings. Ultimately, it is for the Court to decide in each case on the appropriateness of allegations of this nature in order to preserve the procedural balance of the parties.174 Supervening facts are a different matter and can be presented by any of the parties at any stage of the proceedings before the judgment is handed down.175 229. The Court also recalls that, owing to progress in the development of its case law, and following the entry into force of the 1996 reform of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the representatives may request the measures they consider appropriate to put an end to and repair the consequences of the alleged violations, as well as those measures of a positive nature that the State must adopt to ensure that harmful acts are not repeated. Ultimately, it is for Court to decide on the appropriateness of the measures of reparation that it must order. 230. In the instant case, the Court considers that the claims for reparations made by the representatives are in keeping with the facts indicated by the Commission in its application, with the exception of the alleged loss of property rights to a farm belonging to the victim, as well as the burning of the farm’s coffee harvest, which the representatives alleged to justify part of the patrimonial damage. These facts were not included in the Commission’s application. Similarly, the alleged date on which these facts occurred preceded the presentation of the application, and therefore cannot be considered supervening facts. Consequently, the Court will not examine these alleged facts and claims.176 231. The Court observes that the representatives requested that the State pay the sum of US$57,800.00 (fifty-seven thousand eight hundred United States dollars) in patrimonial damages because Patria Portugal left her employment in August of 2000 “to devote herself to promoting the investigation of the Portugal case.” However, on other occasions, the Court has observed that expenses related to access to justice should be repaired under the concept of “reimbursement of costs and expenses” and not “compensation.”177 Therefore, in the instant case, in addition to not having sufficient evidence to determine the professional income that Patria Portugal failed to receive, the Court considers that the corresponding 172 Cf. Case of the "Five Pensioners", supra note 165, para. 155; Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 6, para. 128, and Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 6, para. 27. 173 Cf. Case of the "Five Pensioners", supra note 165, para. 153; Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 6, para. 128, and Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 24, para. 157. 174 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre" v. Colombia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 58; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, para. 89, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 73, para. 54. 175 Cf. Case of "Five Pensioners", supra note 165, para. 154; Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 6, para. 128, and Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 6, para. 27. 176 177 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 6, paras. 13 to 17. Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 134, para. 152; Case of Kimel, supra note 61, para. 109, and Case of García Prieto et al., supra note 10, para. 173.