Applicants and one of the lawyers who pleaded their case before domestic courts. Under the terms of this fee agreement, the Applicants undertake to pay the latter the sum of Eighty Million (80,000,000) CFA Francs. 139. The Court notes, however, that it emerges from the records that, before the Court of Appeal in 2007 and before the Supreme Court in 2009, the Applicants were assisted by two law firms. It is therefore surprising that it was on 23 September 2019, that is, twelve (12) years later, that the Applicants and the lawyer representing one of the two firms signed the fee agreement for services rendered in 2007 and 2009. Furthermore, the Court observes that the Applicants have not submitted any evidence showing that since 2007, the lawyers have at least received an advance on their fees. 140. Accordingly, the Court finds no evidence for this expenditure and dismisses the request for reimbursement. iv. Costs of enforcement of judgments and costs of proceedings 141. The Applicants submit that on several occasions court bailiffs tried in vain to make AGEF or the Respondent State pay them the compensation amount awarded for loss of customary rights. The Applicants pray the Court to order the Respondent State to pay them the sum of Ninety-Six Million Eight Hundred and Fifty-Eight Thousand Three Hundred and SeventyThree (96,858,373) CFA francs being the costs of processing and serving the judgment of the Supreme Court as well as costs of proceedings. 142. The Respondent State contests the Applicants’ request and maintains that enforcement of the decision was incumbent upon AGEF, which is a company with public financial participation, having legal personality and financial autonomy. *** 143. The Court recalls that the costs and expenses of executing judgments are part of the costs of the proceedings and may be reimbursed if they are 34