33 information should attach to the good name and honor of Mr. José María Cantos. d) As for costs and expenses, the Commission asked the Court to set the appropriate sum as reimbursement for the travel expenses of José María Cantos, Susana J. Albanese, Germán J. Bidart Campos, Emilio Weinschelbaum and the individuals offered as witnesses, including their accommodations, for the period from May 1996 to the year 2002, for the trips they made to attend the hearings with the Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court. The figure should be arrived at on the basis of equity considerations, as the airplane and hotel vouchers associated with the trips were not preserved. The Commission petitioned the Court to determine, according to its own criterion and the case law that has been the basis of its decisions, the fees for Mr. Cantos’ attorneys, based on considerations of equity. It asked that the Court take into account that Susana J. Albanese, Germán J. Bidart Campos and Emilio Weinschelbaum began working on the case in May 1996, when the original complaint was filed with the Commission; it also asked the Court to consider the complexity of the case and the fact that the proceedings before the Court followed directly on the Commission’s own proceedings. e) As to the manner of compliance, application of Convention Article 68 notwithstanding, the Commission asked the Court not to order that the case be returned to the domestic courts for determination of compensatory damages. Its petition was based on the fact one of two situations was possible were the matter to be sent back to the domestic courts: 1. Proceedings in the case would begin in a federal lower court, continue in a federal appeals court and ultimately end up in the Supreme Court; or 2. the proceedings could begin to follow the normal course, but then move directly to the Supreme Court by virtue of an appeal per saltum. In the first scenario, they argue that the life cycle of the case would outlive Mr. Cantos, especially when one considers that, acting as court of first instance, the Supreme Court took ten years to discover that the statute of limitations had run and that the action was, therefore, “time barred”; in the second scenario, it is highly likely that the bench of the Supreme Court will be exactly the same bench that delivered the 1996 ruling, there being no guarantee of that Court’s eventual recusal. They argue, further, that there are two systems for the per saltum procedure in law: one praetorian and the other legal for private situations, and that with either one the tendency is for the Supreme Court to pick and choose cases selectively. Allegations of the victim’s representatives On the issue of reparations, costs and expenses, the victim’s representatives made the following points: