49 According to information received from the Argentine Federal Police […] former Sergeant 1 RP 162.134 […] Juan Carlos Bayarri entered the ranks of the police on July 5, 1971, and took voluntary retirement on October 1, 1988; this was changed to termination of employment on May 15, 2006, in the context of administrative hearing No. 465-18-000-222-91, filed as a result of the judicial proceedings entitled: “Kidnappings for Ransom,” heard by National Criminal Court of First Instance No, 25, headed by Nerio Norberto Bonifati, Secretariat No. 145 of Eduardo Albano Larrea. As a result of his dismissal, Mr. Bayarri does not presently enjoy the benefits of the Pension Fund, since he was eliminated from the fund on May 17, 2006. The Argentine Federal Police Retirement and Pension Fund has advised that the person dismissed is registered in this welfare entity under Class 23 […] and, in principle, can take the necessary steps to obtain a minimum pension consisting in [82%] of the retirement pay that he enjoyed before being separated from the institution.159 186. Subsequently, the representatives informed the Court that the victim had not been notified of this administrative decision, by which the Federal Police had decided to dismiss him and asked that the Court “order whosoever it may concern to notify him officially as soon as possible […] so that he can marshal all legal means to contest the decision […].” 187. The Court considers that the administrative action filed against Juan Carlos Bayarri does not form part of the factual basis of the Inter-American Commission’s application; hence it will not rule in that regard. Consequently, the Court will not examine the corresponding reparations requested by the representatives. E) Costs and expenses 188. As the Court has indicated on previous occasions, costs and expenses are included within the concept of reparation embodied in Article 63(1) of the American Convention.160 189. The victim requested the sum of US$170,000.00 (one hundred and seventy thousand United States dollars) for “legal expenses, costs already paid, lawyers’ fees and consultations with different legal experts.” He also requested “the payment of litigation costs and professional fees […] in favor of [his] representatives, to be established taking into account the importance and scale of the proceedings.” In this regard, he requested that the Argentine State pay 33% of the sum granted to him as compensation for the damage suffered to his representatives in this case, based on the provisions of Argentine law concerning professional fees. 190. The Inter-American Commission asked the Court “[t]o order payment of the costs and expenses that the victim incurred to litigate this case in the domestic jurisdiction and also before the Commission and the Court, as well as reasonable fees for his representatives.” 191. The State alleged that “no vouchers have been provided for the supposed expenses that [Mr. Bayarri] is claiming […].” It also argued that the victim “merely establishes a sum that bears no relationship to the standard of reasonableness established by the [Court’s] case law, according to which only those expenses that are strictly necessary to defend a 159 Note of June 18, 2008, addressed to the Head of the Cabinet of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship, Ambassador Alberto Pedro D´Alotto, by the Head of the Cabinet of Advisors to the Minister of Justice, Security and Human Rights, Silvina Zabala (file of attachments to the State’s brief with final arguments, sole tome, folios 6849 to 6850). 160 Cf. case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 147, para. 212; case of Castañeda Gutman, supra note 35, para. 240; case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 10, para. 264.