17 73. The case law of this Court has consistently been that the State has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent human rights violations and to use the means at its disposal to carry out a serious investigation of violations committed within its jurisdiction, to identify those responsible, to impose the appropriate punishment and to ensure the victim adequate compensation. If a violation goes unpunished in a State, in such a way that the victim’s full enjoyment of such rights is not restored as soon as possible, the State has failed to comply with its obligation to ensure the free and full exercise of those rights to the persons within its jurisdiction. (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra 41, para. 174; Godínez Cruz Case, supra 41, para. 184; El Amparo Case, Reparations, supra 40, para. 61 and operative paragraph 4; Neira Alegría et al. Case, Reparations, supra 40, para. 69 and operative paragraph 4; Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, Judgment of December 8, 1995. Series C No. 22, paras. 58 and 69 and operative paragraph 5; Castillo Páez Case, Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 90; Suárez Rosero Case, Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 107 and operative paragraph 6; Blake Case, Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 121 and operative paragraph 3; Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 178 and operative paragraph 6). 74. It follows, therefore, that Argentina has a legal obligation to investigate the facts leading to the disappearance of Adolfo Garrido and Raúl Baigorria and to bring to trial and punish the authors, accomplices, accessories after the fact, and all those who may have played some role in the events that transpired. X COSTS 75. In its application, the Commission requested that "the Court order the Argentine State to pay … "the honoraria of the professionals who have served as representatives of the victims both in their efforts before the Commission and in the proceedings before the Court" (supra 15). On April 7, 1997, by which time the judgment on the merits had been handed down and the reparations phase was already in progress, the victims’ families petitioned the Court to order the Argentine State to pay the honoraria of attorneys Carlos Varela Álvarez and Diego J. Lavado, who estimated those fees at 15% of the total amount of the agreed-upon compensation (supra 27). At the January 20, 1998 hearing, attorney Carlos Varela Álvarez reiterated the request that the Court order the Argentine State to pay his fees and those of his colleague, and that the Court determine what those fees should be. He pointed out that both had served as attorneys on the case since 1991, in the proceedings before the Mendoza courts, the Inter-American Commission and this Court (supra 35). 76. In their brief of April 7, 1995, the attorneys for the victims’ families, VarelaAlvarez and Lavado, stated that they had not kept a record of all expenditures incurred, which was understandable given the "social circumstances of these people." They then requested that the Court set the amount of the expenditures by estimating an approximate figure, particularly given the facts that Argentina had acknowledged in its counter-memorial. Among the expenses mentioned were the fees of four attorneys who took part in proceedings before the Argentine courts, trips made to the provinces of San Juan, San Luis, Cordoba and El Chaco in search of the disappeared men, and notary fees for the general powers of attorney for trials and for testimony sworn before a notary public. The victims’ families estimated all their