amounts respond to standards of reasonableness and proportionality.” 198 On the other hand, the Court considers it relevant to recall that the victims in this case, specifically Mrs. Millacura Llaipén, benefited from the Victim’s Legal Aid Fund in order to participate in the public hearing held before the Court in Panama City, Panamá (supra para. 5 and infra paras. 201 to 203). 200. Taking this into account and as a consequence, the Tribunal rules to establish, in equity, the amount of US$ 15,000.00 (fifteen thousand dollars of the United States of America) for expenses incurred while processing this case before domestic bodies and the Inter-American System. This amount must be paid in the period set by the Court (infra para. 206) to Mrs. Millacura Llaipén, who herself must pay the corresponding amount to the individuals or organizations who have represented her domestically and before the Inter-American System. Subsequently, Mrs. Millacura Llaipén must present before the Court the receipts of this delivery. In the proceeding of monitoring of compliance with this Judgment, the Tribunal may order the State to reimburse the victim or her representatives for the duly demonstrated reasonable expenses during that procedural stage. F. Reimbursement of expenses to the Victim’s Legal Aid Fund. 201. In 2008, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (hereinafter the “OAS”) created the Legal Aid Fund of the Inter-American System of Human Rights. The fund was created “to facilitate access to the Inter-American Human Rights System by persons who currently lack the resources needed to bring their cases before the system.” 199 In this case, the victims were granted the financial assistance necessary from the Legal Aid Fund for Mrs. Millacura Llaipén and one of her representatives to appear at the public hearing held in Panama, as well as to submit the testimony of expert witness Nora Cortiñas (supra paras.10 and 40.b).200 202. The State had the opportunity to submit observations on the expenditures made in this case, which equaled US $10,043.02 (ten thousand and forty-three dollars of the United States of American and two cents). Therefore, in application of Article 5 of the Rules of the Fund, it corresponds to the Court to evaluate whether to order the respondent State to reimburse the Legal Aid Fund for the expenditures made. The State did not present observations on this point. 203. Because of the violations declared in this judgment, the Court ordered the State to reimburse the Fund in the amount of $ 10,043.02 (ten thousand and forty-three 198 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs, supra note 17, para. 213; Case of Chitay Nech et al. V. Guatemala, supra note 69, para. 53, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia, supra note 14, para. 298. 199 AG/RES. 2426 (XXXVIII-O/08) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly during the XXXVIII Regular Period of Sessions of the OAS, in the fourth plenary session, held on June 3, 2008, “Creation of the Fund for Legal Aid of the Inter-American System of Human Rights,” paragraph 2.a, and Order CP/RES. 963 (1728/09), 1.1. 200 Through an Order of the President of the Inter-American Court dated April 14, 2011, and in exercise of its attributes with relation to the Victims Legal Aid Fund of the Court and in keeping with Article 31 of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal and Article 3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Legal Aid Fund, the President of the Court ruled to grant the request submitted by the alleged victims through their representatives to have recourse to the Victims Legal Aid Fund of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, such that it would grant the financial assistance necessary for the presentation of a maximum of one witness, one expert witness report, and the appearance of a representative during the public hearing. He ordered that the specific amount, recipients and purpose of the aid would be specified at the moment the ruling is made on the adduction of the evidence from experts and witnesses and, should it be the case, the opening of the oral procedure, under the terms of Article 50 of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal, in keeping with what has been established in Considering paragraph 13 of that Order. (supra para. 8) 58