106 said Convention, States Parties engage themselves to apply the recommendations made by the Commission in its reports.72 193. In any event, once a matter is channeled through the jurisdictional path, the determination of whether or not the State violated substantive precepts of the Convention corresponds to the Court and, if affirmative, the Court shall then establish the consequences of such violations. In the opposite sense, it is not within the Tribunal’s powers to determine liabilities arising from the procedural conduct of the State during the proceeding handled before the Commission which constitutes, precisely, the necessary step prior to the submission of the case to this Court. XV APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) Arguments of the Commission 194. In its application brief, the Commission, based on Article 10 of the Convention, requested that the Court find that the State “is obliged to reinstate individuals in the exercise of their rights, to pay fair compensatory indemnification to the victims, and to repair the consequences that its violations have generated.” In like manner, the Commission requested “that the Court establish the payment of the costs of this proceeding and that it recognise the right of the victims and their representatives before the Commission and before the Court to be reimbursed for expenses incurred before the Panamanian authorities and before the inter-American system bodies.” 195. In response to a request by the Court (supra para. 54), on January 8, 2001, the Commission submitted a brief to which it attached the documentary evidence that, in its judgment, supported the request for the payment of costs and expenses that appeared in its application, as well as the corresponding arguments (supra para. 56, 64 and 84). 196. In said brief, the Commission informed that the expenses incurred to that date were: a) between September, 1991, and November, 1992: US$ 13,936.69 (thirteen thousand nine hundred thirty-six U.S. dollars and sixty-nine cents) for transportation of the workers of Bayano, Coclé, Colón, Chiriquí and Panama Metro to Panama City to submit reinstatement applications to the Conciliation and Decision Boards, to the Labour Courts, and to the Third Section of the Supreme Court, as well as to file the unconstitutionality action with the Supreme Court of Panama. Said amount would include also expenditures incurred for photocopies and the submission of the claims to the above-mentioned national departments; b) between July, 1994, and March, 1995: US$ 1,994.00 (one thousand nine hundred ninety-four U.S. dollars) for transport and food expenditures incurred in handling the case before the Inter-American Commission, as well as information meetings, stationery, photocopies, and expenses of coordination trips to San Jose, Costa Rica; 72 Loayza-Tamayo Case, supra note 71, para. 80 and 81.