reimbursed for the amounts paid and responsibility assigned to those who had violated the Constitution. 264. Another measure requested by the representatives was the “removal of the photo of Guillermo Castro Dager, the former President of the new Supreme Court of Justice” from the gallery of Presidents of the Supreme Court of Justice. Finally, they requested that a plaque bearing the victims’ names be placed in a visible place in the building of the National Court of Justice, in acknowledgement of their struggle in defense of the institutions and democracy. 265. As to the request to investigate those allegedly responsible, the State argued that if the State should be convicted it would conduct “the investigations necessary to establish the responsibility of the institutions” and that “in the event of a possible declaration of a violation of rights, the Ecuadorian legal system contemplates a procedure for recovering a payment made.” Considerations of the Court 266. As regards the other measures of reparation requested, the Court considers that the delivery of this Judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and adequate to redress the violations suffered by the victims and does not consider it necessary to order those measures. 293 E. Costs and expenses Arguments of the parties 267. The representatives stated that “[t]he victims ha[d] incurred numerous expenses in the proceedings before the domestic authorities, in obtaining evidence for this case, as well as many other expenses during the proceedings before the [Inter-American Commission] and the Court. These included the amounts spent to attend the hearings on admissibility, the hearing on merits, mail expenses, copying of documents, transportation and board and lodging.” The representatives indicated that “[because they did] not have all the vouchers, [they asked] the Court to consider in equity the reimbursement of US $50,000 dollars for costs and expenses incurred in the domestic and international courts.” 268. Subsequently, in their brief of final arguments the representatives indicated that “[t]aking into account the new configuration of the process before the Inter-American Court, the victims’ representatives [had] to cover all travel expenses and payments of expert witnesses before the Inter-American Commission, [which] implied very high costs.” The representatives also stated that “at the time when the [brief of pleadings and motions] was presented [they] only [had] the vouchers for litigation before the [Inter-American Commission] (travel to Washington, postal costs, expert opinion before the [Commission]); however the most significant expenditure [was their] appearance before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” In their brief of final arguments the representatives explained that “after the oral stage of the proceeding, [they] provided [the Court] with details and justifications for the expenses incurred up to the date of the hearing, which totaled USD $43,797.59. 294 If these are added to the costs which [they must] incur for the 293 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 359, and Artavia Murillo et al. (In Vitro Fertilization) v. Costa Rica, para. 344. 294 As to the evidence regarding the financial expenditures made and submitted as attachments to the brief of final arguments of the representatives, the Court found that the receipts submitted were related to expenses for 76