20,000,000 CFA F that is, 5,000,000 per family would be a fair remuneration for the lawyers of the victims”. 79. In the opinion of the Court, the reparation paid to victims of human rights violation may also include the reimbursement of lawyers’ fees. This was the position held by the Court in the afore-cited case of Rev. Mtkila v. United Republic of Tanzania: “The Court notes that expenses and costs form part of the concept of ‘reparations’. Therefore, where the international responsibility of a State is established in a declaratory judgment, the Court may order the State to compensate the victim for expenditure and costs incurred in his or her efforts to obtain justice at the national and international levels"** 80. This position is consistent with that of other international human rights jurisdictions. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, for example, expressed this position in the following terms: “_..costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparations ... because the activity deployed by the next-of-kin of the victims or their representatives in order to obtain justice at both the national and the international level entails expenditure that must be compensated when the State's international responsibility is declared in a judgment against it."2° 81. In determining the amount to be paid in the matter of Rev. Mtkila mentioned above, the Court has held that in the opinion of the Court, the reparation paid to victims of human rights violation may also include the reimbursement of lawyers’ fees.*° 28 Judgment of 13 June 2014, para 39 22 JACHR: Goiburu and Others. Costs), para. 180: “...costs and deployed by the next of kin of national and the international v. Paraguay, Judgment of 22 September 2006 (Merits, Reparations and expenses are included in the concept of reparations... because the activity the victims or their representatives in order to obtain justice at both the level entails expenditure that must be compensated when the State's international responsibility is declared in a judgment against it". See also: ACHR: Caballero-Deigado and Santana v. Colombia, (Merits), Judgment of 8 December 1995), para 71; ACHR: Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina (Reparations and Costs), Judgment of 27 August 1998, para. 79: “Costs are one element to be considered under the concept of reparations to which Article 63(1) of the Convention refers since they are a natural consequence of the effort made by the victim, his or her beneficiaries, or representatives to obtain a court settlement recognizing the violation committed and establishing its legal consequences’; IACHR: Loayza Tomayo v. Peru, (Reparations and Costs) Judgment of 27 November 1998, para 176; IACHR : Cesti Hurtado v. Peru (Reparations and Costs) Judgment of 31 May 2001, para. 72. 3° Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania, Judgment of 13 June 2014, para 40 26