9 39. The Commission requested, as reparation for material damages, the reimbursement of any expenditures the victims' relatives may have incurred in their recourse to the domestic courts, including the numerous journeys they were obliged to make to Lima and their many representations to the Peruvian authorities, and requested US$2,100.00 for each family. The Government, for its part, claimed that the professional services of the attorneys of the Episcopal Social Welfare Commission, an organ of the Peruvian Episcopal Conference, had been provided free of charge. 40. At the public hearing the Commission called for compensation for the costs incurred by the relatives in instituting the proceedings before the Commission and the Court. The Commission considers that “such costs, which have hitherto never been recognized in the jurisprudence of this Court, should be recognized ... on a fundamental principle of justice.” 41. With regard to costs, this Court has already declared, in paragraph 87 of its judgment on the merits of January 19, 1995, that the Commission cannot demand that expenses incurred as a result of its own internal work structure be reimbursed through the assessment of costs. The operation of the human rights organs of the inter-American system is funded by the Member States by means of their annual contributions. (Aloeboetoe et al. Case. Reparations, supra 9, para. 114, and El Amparo Case. Reparations, supra 36, para. 63). 42. Although no documentary evidence of the actual expenditures has been submitted, the Court deems it fair to award an indemnity in the amount of US$2,000.00 to each of the victims' families as compensation for the expenditures incurred in the various representations they made in the country. VII 43. In order to arrive at a suitable amount for the material damages suffered by the victims, the Commission contends that the fair basis for “loss of earnings” in the instant case is the income that the dependent relatives could have received from the victim during the remainder of his life. On that basis, the Commission submits for the consideration of the Court (supra 14 and 22) precise figures for compensation to the next of kin of each of the three victims in the case. 44. The Government has not submitted any precise figures, but contests those submitted by the Commission on the ground of inaccuracy of the data on which they are based; for example: the average life expectancy, an assumption concerning the victim's employment during that time; and a minimum wage, all of which, it claims, is unsubstantiated and unreasonable. The Government adds that another possible argument is the likelihood that, had the victims lived, they would have been sentenced to years of imprisonment for the crime of terrorism and would therefore have been unable to work during that time (supra 20). 45. The Court rejects this last argument of the Government, on the ground that the victims were not convicted and sentenced, and that the general legal principle of the right to be presumed innocent must apply [Art. 8(2) of the American Convention].