18 f) US$ 55,836.56 (fifty-five thousand eight hundred and thirty-six United States dollars and fifty-six cents) for expenses arising from these journeys, such as airport taxes, taxis, hotels, food, telephone calls, faxes and translators. Mr. Cesti stated that, although the Commission was formally responsible for submitting the case to the Court, the advice of the victim’s lawyer was fundamental in order to process the case appropriately. Moreover, he requested the Court to determine Mr. Borea’s fees for the reparation stage, since the latter had agreed that his fees would depend on the respective results, and suggested that this amount should be no less than 15% of the amount that the Court ordered Peru to pay as reparation. Lastly, he observed that the disbursements he would have to make for the presence of his lawyer and the parties in San José, Costa Rica, were still pending. 69. In its brief on reparations, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to pay Mr. Cesti the expenses that he had incurred, at both the domestic level and before the inter-American system; to this end, it referred to the justification and the estimate of expenses that the victim had submitted in the instant case. 70. In this respect, the State indicated that: a) the Commission represented Mr. Cesti’s interests before the InterAmerican Court, and its involvement was compensated by the contributions of the countries that form part of the Convention, which included Peru, and that the other expenses incurred in the said proceeding should be paid for by the interested parties; b) the amounts proposed by the victim, including those that he was attempting to collect for his defense before the military justice system, “[did] not harmonize with the table of fees established in [Peru]” and that it did not consider it viable for a supranational instance to establish the costs of an internal judicial proceeding; and c) the expenses for travel and per diems include travel to countries that have no relation to the proceeding in the instant case. 71. It should be understood that costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparation established in Article 63(1) of the American Convention, because the measures taken by the victim or victims, their successors or their representatives to have access to international justice imply financial disbursements and commitments that should be compensated when a guilty verdict is delivered. Therefore, this Court considers that the costs referred to in Article 55(1) of the Rules of Procedure also include the various necessary and reasonable expenses that the victims make in order to have access to the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, and the fees of those who provide legal assistance are included among the expenses. Evidently, this only refers to the necessary and reasonable expenses, according to the particularities of the case, which are effectively incurred or defrayed by the victim or his representatives28. Owing to the foregoing, the Court must prudently assess the scope of the costs and expenses, bearing in mind the 28 Cf. Loayza Tamayo case. Reparations, supra note 7, para. 177; and Garrido and Baigorria case. Reparations, supra note 12, para. 80.