- 100 before the Commission, the Association paid all the expenses of the trips to Washington D.C.,
United States of America, to take part in the hearing of this case. Consequently, they requested
payment of costs and expenses prior to the presentation of the pleadings and motions brief for the
sum of US$9,922.86.474 Following the presentation of the pleadings and motions brief, the AJD
alleged that it had incurred expenses for the certification and forwarding of the affidavits.475
Additionally, it had covered the travel and accommodation expenses of its representative and of the
victims to the hearing of this case before the Court.476 These expenses were calculated at
US$6,773.80. Therefore, they requested payment of a total of US$16,696.66477 for costs and
expenses covered by the AJD.
328. Regarding the costs and expenses incurred by CEJIL, the representatives indicated that CEJIL
had had “expenses that included trips, accommodation, communications, photocopies, stationary
and mailings,” and also legal work, research, compilation and presentation of evidence, interviews,
and preparation of briefs.478 Thus, CEJIL had incurred expenses of US$25,281.86 before the
presentation of the pleadings and motions brief. Following the presentation of this brief, it presented
vouchers for expenses arising from psychosocial support for the victims; producing expert evidence
for the public hearing; sending the original expert opinions, and the salaries of three
representatives of CEJIL. These expenses were calculated at US$24,094.47. Therefore, they
requested a total payment of US$49,376.33 for costs and expenses incurred throughout the
proceedings before the Court, and that the State reimburse this amount directly to CEJIL.
329. The State indicated that it “trusts that, once the dispute has been decided, the party who
prevails will be awarded the right to reimbursement of the expenses that it may have incurred as a
result of the proceedings and that, should the Court […] find that the parties had reasonable
grounds for litigating, they are exempted from the payment of such expenses.”
330. The Court reiterates that, according to it case law,479 costs and expenses form part of the
concept of reparation, because the actions taken by the victims in order to obtain justice, at both
the domestic and the international level, entail disbursements that must be compensated when the
international responsibility of the State is declared in a judgment against it. It also recalls that the
eventual reimbursement of costs and expenses is made on the basis of the disbursements that
have been duly authenticated before the Court.
331. With regard to the expenses alleged by the victims in relation to the administrative
proceedings, considering the absence of specific probative elements on this item, as well as the
474
The representatives alleged that the costs of the hunger strike amounted to US$2,149.35; the travel expenses of Ms.
Flores Lanza to US$500.00; the participation of the victims in the hearing on admissibility to US$3,413.15, and the
participation in the hearing on the merits to US$3,860.36.
475
The representatives forwarded the vouchers for costs and expenses incurred following the presentation of the pleadings
and motions brief together with their final written arguments (supra para. 38).
476
In this regard, they alleged that, even though the Court had decided not to summon the four victims to testify at the
hearing, the victims “felt it was very important to be present.” Regarding the wife of Mr. Chévez, they indicated that her
presence was “very important” for her husband, because “the consequences […] of the actions that he took […] entailed some
difficulties in their relationship; thus, sharing the experience with her helped repair the situation.”
477
The representatives indicated that the cost of certifying and forwarding the affidavits of the victims and their family
members, and the expert opinions was US$533.48. Regarding the expenses for participating in the public hearing, they
indicated that these amounted to US$6,240.32.
478
CEJIL indicated, with regard to the expenses for travel between San José and San Pedro Sula, that “some of these […
were] not used entirely for work relating to this case, [so that] the amounts were established on the basis of a proportionate
amount of the expenses incurred for the trip, based on the time dedicated specifically to work on this case.”
479
Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39,
para. 79, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala, supra, para. 376.