and Ancalaf Llaupe as regards the exercise of their role as indigenous leaders of Mapuche communities. In addition, at the level of the family, the statements of the victims and the members of their families reveal the breakdown of family ties as a result of the trials and the years of deprivation of liberty, added to the victims’ concern and anguish because they could not provide for their families financially or fulfill their parental duties during the time they were imprisoned. 446. Based on all the above, the Court finds it pertinent to order compensation in favor of Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, which includes both the pecuniary damage, and the non-pecuniary damage that has been verified and, to this end, determines, in equity, the sum of US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars) or the equivalent in local currency, for each of them. D) Costs and expenses 447. CEJIL argued that “[s]ince it incorporated the case as the representative of [Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe, it] had assumed a series of expenses connected with this task, which included travel, hotels, communications, photocopies, stationery and mailings,” as well as those “corresponding to the time dedicated by the lawyers to specific attention to the case and to research, obtaining and presenting evidence, conducting interviews, and preparing briefs.” In its motions and arguments brief, it asked the Court to order the State to reimburse US$10,899.99 for costs and expenses. With its final written arguments it presented “a list of the expenses incurred since the presentation of the [motions and arguments brief] and up until the public hearing at the seat of the Court,” amounting to US$17,816.77. In total, CEJIL asked the Court for reimbursement of US$28,716.76 for costs and expenses. In addition, it asked the Court, “based on equity, […] to order the deposit of an additional amount” for future expenses that included “those related to compliance with the judgment,” as well as “the expenses of trips from Argentina to Chile […], to advance compliance with the judgment, and the other expenses that the proceedings could entail […] following notification of the Judgment.” 448. The FIDH described the expenses it had incurred by “accompany […] the victims in this case”; among these, it referred to expenditure on plane tickets, accommodation and per diem for “a visit to Washington to the Inter-American Commission by three lawyers and one representative of the FIDH,” as well as “trips to Chile to inform the victims about the progress of the case; to hold meetings with Chilean lawyers, and to obtain evidence,” and a trip to San José, Costa Rica, to attend the hearing before the Court. It calculated that these expenses amounted to US$32.000,00. In addition, it referred to the expenses “incurred by the lawyers and by the victims,” because “two lawyers [Jaime Madariaga and Myriam Reyes] have represented the victims from the start of the proceedings on a voluntary basis” and it therefore asked the Court to recognize “honoraria for their work” because “[f]rom the moment that the FIDH incorporated the case, they began to provide technical and professional support, […] but have not receive any remuneration.”434 In addition, it asked that the State “pay the amount for costs and expenses directly to the representatives of the victims.” 449. The Court reiterates that, in keeping with its case law,435 costs and expenses form part of the concept of reparation established in Article 63(1) of the American Convention, because the activity deployed by the victims in order to obtain justice at both the domestic and the 434 In this regard, the FIDH indicated that this case “has required a significant effort [by the national lawyers], including the filing of the complaint, visits to the prisons to interview the victims, establishing trust and agreements that allowed the case to be constructed,” all of which “has entailed personnel expenses” and time working on the case. 435 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 Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 162. 146