76 287. Regarding the fees, in the brief of final arguments of the representatives, in relation with the processing of the case before the Inter-American System, they signaled that “the expenses and costs that are given through this procedure come about from the work of a working group divided among [professionals that are residents of] Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, and Colombia, a total of eighteen persons,”288 who gave advice and legal assistance and collection, and requested, in the table titled “professional fees” the payment of US$ 96,000.00 (ninety six thousand dollars of the United States of America)289 distributed among 12 persons who made up the working team that offered the notary services,290 psychological services,291 and legal assistance,292 without presenting proof of payment or a breakdown of the fees. This Court observes that it is reasonable in the processing of a case to incur a series of derogations related with assistance and the offering of services, but it must be remembered that that which is requested must be duly justified, and be that which the Court will evaluate at the moment of the fixing the corresponding amount. 288. In addition, it fits to signal that the representatives did not remit the respective proof of payments of expenses and costs that they had supposedly incurred at the moment of the presentation of the brief of motions and pleadings, without detriment that it could have been updated at a later moment. Referring to the expenses presented: a) numerous proof of payments that existed at the moment of the remittance of the brief of motions and pleadings were not presented at this opportunity,293 and b) some proof of payments did not have a direct relationship with the processing of the case or were supported by any justification.294 Regarding the fees, some areas indicated fees without justification.295 This Court will take into account, when fixing the amount for concept of costs and expenses, the moment that it was requested, if it was duly founded, and if it has a direct relationship with the present case. The Tribunal also calls attention to the variations in the amounts requested, which also will be evaluated. 289. In consideration of all the aforementioned and the observations of the State, the Court fixes in equity a total quantity of US$ 10,000.00 (10,000.00 dollars of the United States of America) for the costs and expenses incurred in the litigation of the present case. 288 Bernard Duhaime, Alejandro Sánchez Garrido, Wilson of los Reyes Aragón, María del Pilar Gutiérrez Perilla, Christian González Chacón, Ligia María del Valle Vega, Juan Manuel of la Cruz Estrada, Carolina Illescas, Tirsa Rebeca Jiménez Navas, Julie Dubé Gagnon, Sebastián Beaulieu, Nicolas Abran, Francisco Reina, Adriana Padron, Mylene Bellerose, Gabriel Legaré, Maryse Decarie-Daigneault and Marc Perron. 289 Nevertheless, it is important to note that the table bears the heading “professional fees in the Case Florencio Chitay Nech et. al. V. Guatemala” requesting the amount of US$81,689.00 (eighty-one thousand, six hundred and nine Dollars of the United States of America). 290 Juan Pablo Pons Castillo and Sharon Karina Hernández Rivas. 291 Bertha Graciela Escobedo Barrondo, for rendering psychological attention to Pedro and Encarnación Chitay Rodríguez, without noting the date of service nor justification. 292 Bernard Duhaime, Alejandro Sánchez Garrido, Wilson of los Reyes Aragón, María del Pilar Gutiérrez Perilla, Christian González Chacón, Ligia María del Valle Vega, Juan Manuel of la Cruz Estrada, Carolina Illescas and Tirsa Rebeca Jiménez Navas. 293 In particular, the receipts refer to expenses carried out between June 2003 and August 2007. 294 Between them there are receipts of expenses related to souvenirs of “Kiosco Britt” (necklaces, shirts, and chocolates), a medical consultation and an ultrasound, 3 portable computers, and alcoholic beverages. 295 In particular, for the alleged loss of the job of the Attorney Astrid Escobedo Barrondo given her of the case in the System.