98. Furthermore, the Court reiterates that, in accordance with its case law,98 the costs and expenses incurred form part of the reparations, given that the actions taken by the victims to obtain justice at both national and international levels imply expenses that should be compensated when the State’s international responsibility is declared through a criminal conviction. 99. The Court considers it appropriate to endorse the reparations agreed by the State in the friendly settlement agreement to compensate Messrs. Juan García Cruz and Santiago Sánchez Silvestre for lost earnings and non-pecuniary damages, and to reimburse the aforementioned representatives of the victims for the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings at the domestic and international levels. Considering the circumstances of this case, the Court believes that the timely payment of the compensation is particularly important to mitigate the pecuniary consequences and the profound suffering that the violations caused the victims in various aspects of their lives, particularly as regards their integrity, family life and their work. The Court also deems it appropriate to ratify the requirement “to keep the amounts of economic compensation in the strictest confidence,” as established in the agreement. For this reason the amounts have not been included in this Judgment. G) Method of compliance with the agreed measures and settlement of potential disputes in the friendly settlement agreement 100. Regarding the payment of educational scholarships for the victims and for the daughter of one of them, the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and the reimbursement of costs and expenses established in this Judgment, the Court notes that the parties agreed on the actions to be taken if the State should fall into arrears with the payment. It further ruled that the amounts will be paid in the manner established in the “Rules of Operation of the Trust for the Fulfillment of Human Rights Obligations.” This document was not provided to the Court. Nevertheless, the Court deems it pertinent to recall that, according to its case law, the aforementioned payments must be made directly to the persons or organizations indicated in this Judgment within the time periods specified in the friendly settlement agreement. These amounts cannot be affected or conditioned by taxes now or in the future. Therefore they should be paid to the beneficiaries in full, as agreed by the parties. 101. The parties agreed that the friendly settlement agreement would “enter in force from the time the Court issues [this] Judgment […] and will conclude when all the commitments have been fulfilled.” Moreover, said agreement established that, “[n]otwithstanding the responsibility of the State as a whole, and that of the various powers and bodies that constitute it, the Interior Ministry, the Attorney’ General’s Office and the Ministry of Foreign Relations shall coordinate the actions to ensure full compliance of [th]e Agreement.” 102. The friendly settlement agreement signed between the victims, their representatives and the State has been ratified by this Judgment; therefore, any dispute or difference that may arise shall be clarified by this Court. 98 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 79 and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra note 84, para. 258. 28