8.
Consequently, we are of the view that the position of the Court in the instant
case reveals an unjustified inconsistency in its decisions with respect to similar cases
that the Court has concluded so far.
9.
Furthermore, according to the established jurisprudence of other human rights
courts, a party is entitled to a refund of costs and expenses only in so far as it is
demonstrated that such costs or expenses have been actually and necessarily
incurred and are reasonable as to quantum.3 This requires that the applicant should
substantiate his claims with evidence showing that he incurred the said costs or
expenses and were indeed necessary for pursuing his Application.
10.
This is not the case in the instant Application. As we indicated earlier, the
Applicant has not made any submissions or prayed for costs, or provided documents
indicating that he incurred any costs. While ordering the Respondent State to bear the
costs, the majority also did not specify or reckon the necessary and reasonable costs
that the Respondent State is expected to bear, Nor did the Court, as it has done in
some other cases4, indicate in the instant case that it will in a future separate
proceeding, determine the exact amount
of such costs that the Applicant is entitled to
get reimbursement. lt is thus not clear what the majority envisaged as costs that should
be borne by the Respondent State, since the Applicant is self-represented and the
Court does not charge any fees.
11.
We therefore conclude that the majority should, for purpose of maintaining
consistency, have followed the Court's established position that, in the absence of
submissions or claims on costs from one or both parties, each party shall bear its own
costs. Alternatively, the majority should have provided reasons to justify their
departure from the court's established position.
3 Applications nos. 68762/14 and 71200/14. Judgment of 2010912018. Case of Aliyev v. Azerbaijan,
para. 236, Series C No. 352. Judgment of 1310312018, Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia.
Merits, Reparations and Costs. lnter-American Court of Human Rights, para. 230
4 ln some previous cases, the Court has deferred the issue of costs to a later stage to consider it
together with other forms of reparations. See Application No. 01212015. Judqment of 22 10312018.
Anudo Ochieno Anudo v. United Republic of Tanzania, para. 131
a
J
vfr\L
€_