proceedings and the highly political sensitivity of the case; and also when we take into consideration the qualitative requirements of the procedure before an international court®?, The Respondent State itself admits that a global amount of nearly twelve times On the other hand, the amount higher, that is, 20,000,000 CFA F would be reasonable. of 100,000,000 CFA F based on the lawyers’ fees agreement seems to be too high in the circumstances, particularly if account is taken of the fact that there was only one matter for the four families. 87. In the circumstances, the Court has to determine the amount of lawyer's fees on the basis of equity, going by what it considers reasonable in each case**. In its opinion, in the instant case, and considering both the amounts set by the Indicative Scale, amounts stipulated in the fees agreement and the amounts the proposed by the Respondent State itself, a total lump sum comprising expenses and lawyers’ fees in the amount of 40 million would be equitable and reasonable. B) Transport and sojourn expenses at the Seat of the Court 88. In their Brief on Reparations, the Applicants once again argue that reimbursement of transport and sojourn expenses for their Counsel and the representative of MBDHP in Arusha for their participation in the public hearing of the African Court forms part of the appropriate orders of reparation prescribed in Article 27 of the Protocol establishing the 32 See IACHR: Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina (Reparations and Costs) Judgment of 27 August 1998, para. 83: “There are... important factors to be weighed when assessing the performance of the attorneys in a proceeding before an international tribunal, such as the evidence introduced to demonstrate the facts alleged, full knowledge of international jurisprudence and, in general, everything that would demonstrate the quality and relevance of the work performed." 33 See in particular’ IACHR: Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina (Reparations and Costs) Judgment of 27 August 1998, para. 80; IACHR: Constitutional Court v. Peru (Merits, Reparations and Costs) Judgment of 31 January 2001, para, 125; IACHR: “White Van" (Paniagua-Morales and Others) v. Guatemala (Reparations) Judgment of 25 May 2001, para. 213; IACHR: Cesti Hurtado v. Peru (Reparations and Costs) Judgment of 31 May 2001, para. 72; IACHR: Goiburu and Others. v. Paraguay, (Merits, Reparations and Costs), Judgment of 22 September 2006 para. 180: "This assessment [of expenses and costs] may be based on the principle of equity and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided the quantum is reasonable"; cf, ECHR: Thomas v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 17 July 2008, para. 32: “The Court reiterates that only legal costs and expenses found to have been actually and necessarily incurred and which are reasonable as to quantum are recoverable under Article 41 of the Convention". 28 a Fe i