jurisdiction for the protection of human rights. This assessment must be based on the principle of fairness, taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, as long as their quantum is reasonable. 381 278. The Court confirms that the representatives did not present proof of the expenses incurred in their pursuit of justice for family A before the Guatemalan authorities. However, the Court is aware of the efforts made by B.A. and E.A. in the investigations initiated in Guatemala regarding the facts of this case (supra paras. 101, 103, 106, 112, 123, 152 and 170). Consequently, the Court orders the State to pay, in equity, the sum of USD $2,000.00 (two thousand dollars of the United States of America) to Mrs. E.A and the sum of USD $3,000.00 (three thousand dollars of the United States of America) to Mrs. B.A., for costs incurred in the domestic sphere. 279. As to the expenses incurred before the Inter-American System, the Court has confirmed that the representatives submitted receipts related to expenses incurred in attending the public hearing before this Court, and to send the affidavit of the expert witness Luis Enrique Eguren. 382 Consequently, the Court orders the State to reimburse the victims’ representatives the sum of USD $3,439.22 (three thousand, four hundred and thirty-nine dollars and twenty-two cents of the United States of America). Furthermore, despite the fact that the representatives did not provide evidence regarding other expenses incurred before the organs of the Inter-American System, the Court considers it reasonable to presume that additional expenses arose in the approximately 9 years during which the case was being processed. Therefore, it orders the State to reimburse the representatives in the amount of USD $5,000.00 (five thousand dollars of the United States of America) for costs and USD $12,000.00 (twelve thousand dollars of the United States of America) for fees. The Court may order the State to reimburse the victims or their representatives for subsequent expenses that are reasonable and duly proven, during the stage of monitoring compliance with this Judgment. 383 F) Other measures of reparation requested 280. The representatives also asked the Court to order the State to: a) organize a public act in acknowledgment of its international responsibility; b) organize “acts to honor the memory of [A.A.] […]”; c) guarantee access to the training programs for members of the family who had to abandon these to ensure their safety; d) “repair the damage caused to the community by completing the housing and road paving projects”, and e) “provide funds to enable the family [A] to continue with the projects begun by [A.A.], and to continue with his civic and political work in defense of human rights, through the creation of a foundation that addresses school absenteeism and drop-out rates among girls and adolescents in the municipality[, as well as ] the historical memory.” 281. In this regard, the Court considers that the measures of reparation ordered in this Judgment are sufficient, having regard to the facts and the human rights violations established. G) Method of compliance with the payments ordered 282. The State shall make payment of the indemnities for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and the reimbursement of costs and expenses established in this Judgment directly to the individuals specified herein, within one year from the date of notification of this Judgment, under the terms of the following paragraphs. 381 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria. Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 82, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 450. 382 Includes costs of accommodation, transport, food, airport exit taxes from San José, Costa Rica, and postal costs for sending package. Total confirmed: Q15,534.23 Guatemalan quetzales (approximately USD $1,990.63); USD $997.50; ₡172,352.00 Costa Rican colones (approximately USD $312.89), €101.65 euros (approximately USD $138.20). The Court will not take into account the following: an undated receipt for USD $38.72, a presumed receipt for a meal dated February 4, 2014, which is illegible, and a voucher for the purchase of dollars. 383 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra, para. 291, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 454. 79