housing; (v) grant Manuela’s parents a plot of land apt for agriculture near their current dwelling; (vi) designate a ward in the maternity or oncology unit of the Rosales National Hospital, with the name “Manuela”; (vii) erect “a monument as a permanent public tribute in memory of the victims of criminalization due to obstetric emergencies”; (viii) regulate in flagrante delicto in keeping with the standards of the inter-American system; (ix) adopt the necessary measures to generate a quantitative and qualitative report on the magnitude of the criminalization of obstetric emergencies in El Salvador, as well as to identify short-, medium- and long-term measures to eliminate the existence of such cases, make adequate reparation to the victims, and ensure that there will be no new prosecutions; (x) review the sentences of women criminally punished for obstetric emergencies, and (xi) regulate “the remedy of appeal appropriately so that it abides by inter-American standards and guarantees that those sentenced in second instance have access to a comprehensive review of the guilty verdict by a judgment ordering a new trial or an acquittal.” 314. The State advised that it was investigating, “through the prosecution service, the actions of the public defender in order to determine the administrative, disciplinary or other responsibilities, and the appropriate measures to take.” El Salvador did not refer to the other requests made by the Commission and the representatives. 315. The Court finds that the delivery of this judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and adequate to redress the violations suffered by the victims; therefore, it does not find it necessary to order the preceding measures. G. Costs and expenses 316. The representatives requested the reimbursement of costs and expenses corresponding to disbursements for several days of board and lodging and transportation to assist the presumed victims and to develop arguments prior to the presentation of the pleadings and motions brief, amounting to US$11,087.01 for the Colectiva Feminista para el Desarrollo Local of El Salvador, and US$54,638.67 for the Center for Reproductive Rights. Regarding the sum requested for the Center for Reproductive Rights, the representatives indicated that “[o]ther undocumented expenses exist and it is requested that they are calculated, in equity,” at US$29,241.24. In their final written arguments, they requested the additional payment of US$4,180.71 in favor of the Colectiva Feminista para el Desarrollo Local of El Salvador and US$6,182.07 in favor of the Center for Reproductive Rights. In total, they asked for the payment of US$15,267.72 for the Colectiva Feminista para el Desarrollo Local of El Salvador and US$60,820.74 for the Center for Reproductive Rights. 317. The State underscored that the expense vouchers provided by the Colectiva Feminista para el Desarrollo Local of El Salvador corresponded to “expenses that have been charged to cooperation projects, whose funds are non-reimbursable.” Regarding the Center for Reproductive Rights, the State indicated that “the expenses reported correspond only to the item of air fares and travel without proving that this was specifically related to the case.” Therefore, it asked the Court to determine the expenses that were clearly related to and “incurred exclusively for the purpose of this case and that are sufficiently authenticated.” 318. The Court reiterates that, according to its case law, 455 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 internal and the international level, entail disbursements that should be compensated when the international responsibility of the State has been declared in a judgment. Regarding reimbursement of costs and expenses, the Court must prudently assess their scope, which includes the expenses incurred before the authorities of the domesticl Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 82, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 138. 455 85