with dignity, or sensitivity, everywhere I went they treated me as the criminal, as the one to blame for having been raped, and I was a girl, the system did not protect me, it did not prevent it, it did not prevent the sexual violence, and did not protect me once I had suffered it.335 226. However, this Court takes into account the will of the victim,336 expressed in the briefs presented by the representatives, as well as in her statement at a public hearing, regarding her desire that “anything that the government was going to give for health, for therapy, please give it to the girls who are suffering right now,” and to “not seek[e] any kind of damages for herself and instead […] focus the attention of the Court in the granting of measures of satisfaction and nonrepetition", for which the Court refrains from making any determination regarding measures of rehabilitation and compensatory compensation. 227. Furthermore, regarding the other measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition requested, the Court considers that the issuance of this judgment, and the other measures of reparation ordered, are sufficient and appropriate to remedy the violations suffered by the victims. Thus, it does not consider it necessary to order the additional measures requested by the representatives. F. Costs and expenses 228. The representatives indicated that the alleged victim would request reimbursement of the expenses for local and international travel, and other expenses that may be incurred by her, her witnesses, experts and representatives in relation to the hearing of the case. In their final written arguments, they indicated that by virtue of the hearing having been held in a virtual format, “Brisa does not request reimbursement of any costs or expenses.” For its part, the State noted that the victim had only requested reimbursement for the travel expenses generated by a possible hearing in the case, which is why it only requested that such expenses be taken into account, and not those related to the payment of fees, for example. Subsequently, in its final written arguments, it stated that the only requested expense “was not carried out” taking into account that the public hearing was held virtually, for which it requested that “the State not be ordered to pay costs and expenses.” 229. As the Court has already pointed out on previous occasions,337 costs and expenses are part of the concept of reparation, since the activity carried out by the victims in order to obtain justice, both nationally and internationally, involves expenditures that must be compensated when the international responsibility of the State is declared through a judgment. However, the Court notes that the victim, through her representatives, expressly indicated that she was not requesting reimbursement of any sum for costs and expenses. Therefore, the Court, as it has done in other cases, considers that the costs and expenses of the litigation are not the subject of dispute and it is not necessary for it to rule on this point. IX OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 230. Therefore, THE COURT DECIDES, 335 Cf. Statement of Brisa De Angulo Losada during the public hearing, supra. Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, paras. 286 and 297. 336 337 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, paras. 82, and Case of Aroca Palma et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 150. 69