28 (cf. the statement made in the presence of a notary by Carolina Maida Loayza-Tamayo and the statement given by María Elena Loayza-Tamayo before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights); b) Attorneys Carolina Loayza-Tamayo, Ariel E. Dulitzky, Juan Méndez, José Miguel Vivanco, Viviana Krsticevic and Verónica Gómez represented the victim in the process before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. They also represented the victim during the Court’s proceedings on the merits of the Case; the one exception was Mr. Méndez, who resigned as the plaintiff representative on September 16, 1997. During these stages of the proceedings, certain expenses involved in the victim’s representations were paid by attorney Carolina Loayza-Tamayo (cf. Judgment of September 17, 1997, para. 5; telephone bills from the Compañía Peruana de Teléfonos and Telefonía del Peru, Appendix XXXI; receipts for postal correspondence, Appendix XXXII; receipts for fax transmission of the petition and application in the Loayza Tamayo Case, Appendix XXXIII; receipts for correspondence sent by courier to process the petition and application in the Loayza Tamayo Case, Appendix XXXIV; airfare invoices in the name of Carolina Loayza-Tamayo, Appendix XXXV; and the statement given by María Elena Loayza-Tamayo before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights); and c) Attorneys Carolina Loayza-Tamayo, Ariel Dulitzky, Viviana Krsticevic, Marcela Matamoros and José Miguel Vivanco represented the victim during the reparations proceedings before this Court. On June 18, 1998, Ms. Marcela Matamoros advised the Court her withdrawal as legal representative in the instant Case. Attorney Carolina Loayza-Tamayo paid some of the expenses associated with the victim’s representation (cf. airfare invoices in the name of Carolina Loayza-Tamayo, Appendix XXXV; and the statementy given by María Elena Loayza-Tamayo before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights). E) In general: a) At the time of the victim’s detention, the official exchange between the sol, Peru’s local currency, and the United States dollar, was a buying rate of 1.74 to 1 and a selling rate of 1.75 to 1 (cf. information on exchange rate (new soles per United States dollar), Appendix XXXVII; quotations on the exchange rate between the local currency of Peru and the United States dollar from January 1990 to June 1998 issued by the Chief of the Department of Economic Statistics and Studies of the Office of Superintendent of Banking and Insurance); and b) In Peru, there are a number of laws on work bonuses within the public and private sectors. Of these, the one most favorable to the worker is Law No. 25,139, of December 14, 1989, which provides for two bonuses each year, each one equal to "the worker’s basic monthly salary at the time the bonus is paid" (cf. statements by the State, dated August 21, 1998, Law 25139 of December 14, 1989, on bonuses; Legislative Decree 276 – Statute of the Civil Service and Remuneration in the Public Sector; Law 26894 of November 28, 1997, on the 1998 Public Sector Budget; Supreme Decree 061-98-EF, July 6, 1998, granting government pensioners, officials and civil servants a National Festivities bonus of an extra month’s pay; Urgent Decree No. 107-97 of December 5, 1997, granting government pensioners, officials and civil servants, and armed forces and national police personnel a Christmas bonus of an extra month’s pay; Supreme Decree 070-85-PCM; Decree-