97 310. According to the information that appears in the report on the disbursements made in this case, these amounted to US$2,117.99 (two thousand one hundred and seventeen United States dollars and ninety-nine cents). In application of article 5 of the Rules for the Operation of the Fund, it is for the Court to evaluate the admissibility of ordering the defendant State to reimburse the Legal Assistance Fund for any disbursements made. 311. In this regard, the Court reiterates the considerations in the order of its President of January 8, 2013, in which it was indicated that the request to access the Assistance Fund was made at the appropriate time in the motions and arguments brief and that the representative had indicated precisely the assistance that the presumed victim required from the Fund (supra para. 9). In addition, as indicated in the said order, the Court reiterates that the purpose of access to the Assistance Fund was to cover reasonable and necessary expenses related to the production of evidence before the Court, specifically for the presentation of a maximum of four statements, either by affidavit or at the public hearing. 312. The State opposes reimbursing the Victims’ Fund because “there was an unnecessary increase in the cost” in relation to the affidavits provided because, according to the State this would be covered by the Fund. The Court notes that the State has not questioned the authenticity or truth of the expense vouchers, but has asserted that the affidavits could have cost less. 313. The representative, in its observations on the final arguments of the State, indicated that “at the time the quote was obtained, the activities of CONAPREVI had been halted for approximately one year” and that it “did not know why the lawyer had established a different amount to the quote provided by the lawyer Irini Villavicencio (on behalf of CONAPREVI), a situation that is not the responsibility of the representative.” 314. In this regard, the Court notes that there is a difference of Q 800.00 (eight hundred quetzals) between the voucher for the cost of the affidavits presented by the representative, and the vouchers presented by the State. However, this circumstance does not affect the expense that was effectively incurred; thus, it does not find it pertinent to examine further this point or the other disbursements relating to the travel and accommodation expenses to ensure appearances before the Court. Regarding the other arguments of the State concerning the amounts claimed for funeral expenses, this has already been decided in this Judgment and, in any case, this item was not paid by the Victim’s Fund. Furthermore, regarding Guatemala’s opposition to being condemned to pay because it does not consider itself responsible for any violation, this is a matter related to the merits of the case that has already been decided. 315. Based on the violations declared in this Judgment, the Court orders the State to reimburse the said Fund the sum of US$2,117.99 (two thousand one hundred and seventeen United States dollars and ninety-nine cents) for the expenses incurred. This amount must be reimbursed to the Inter-American Court within ninety days of notification of this Judgment. I. Method of complying with the payments ordered 316. The State must pay the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and reimbursement of costs and expenses established in this Judgment directly to the persons indicated herein, within one year of notification of this Judgment in accordance with the following paragraphs. 317. If the beneficiaries should die before the respective compensation is delivered to them, it must be delivered directly to their heirs pursuant to the applicable domestic laws. 318. The State must comply with its monetary obligations by payment in quetzals or the equivalent in United States dollars, using the exchange rate in force on the New York