established, backed by supporting documents and if the Court finds a causal link to the violation found. In the instant case, the Court notes that it has found a violation of the Applicants’ right to execution of the court decision rendered in their favour. 144. The Court notes that in the records, the costs of the bailiff's writ are shown as follows: (i) 80,000 CFA Francs in respect of service of the Judgment of the Abidjan Court of Appeal of 13 July 2007; (ii) 80,000 CFA Francs in respect of service of the Judgment of 9 April 2019 on 11 April 2019; (iii) 156,000 CFA Francs in respect of the writ of 18 February 2019 for seizureattachment of receivables from the accounts of AGEF and (iv) 647,000 CFA Francs in respect of the writ of service relating to the payment order addressed to AGEF. 145. Having considered all of the foregoing, the Court notes that the total amount in respect of bailiff’s writ is Nine Hundred and Sixty-Three Thousand (963,000) CFA Francs. 146. Accordingly, the Court orders the Respondent State to reimburse the Applicants the sum of Nine Hundred and Sixty-Three Thousand (963,000) CFA Francs being costs incurred in respect of bailiff’s services. v. Expert fees 147. The Applicants aver that they hired an expert to evaluate the expropriated land for which they did not receive compensation in accordance with the law. They aver that the expert’s invoice amount is One Hundred and Six Million Two Hundred Thousand (106,200,000) CFA Francs and request that the Respondent State be ordered to pay the said amount. 148. The Respondent State maintains that the expert opinion unilaterally ordered by the Applicants is not enforceable against it and prays the Court to dismiss the Applicants’ prayer. 35