(iii) the demonstrations in question were organised organisations in a forum called “Group of mass organizations did not therefore constitute actions (iv) the said in conjunction with other and political parties”, and specific and peculiar to MBDHP; demonstrations had always been directed against impunity in general and not solely in favour of the “Norbert Zongo" case; (v) the MBDHP did not present any document attesting to the costs that it claimed to have incurred to hold demonstrations, and did not even indicate when the said demonstrations took place. Consequently, the Respondent State prayed the Court, on grounds of the aforesaid, to throw out MBDHP's request for reimbursement of the said costs as “fake and groundless.” 71. The Court recalls that the Burkinabeé Movement on Human and Peoples’ Rights is, as the name indicates, a human and peoples’ rights advocacy organisation in Burkina Faso. It is therefore evident that the organization of human rights advocacy demonstrations in that country, including for the rights of the beneficiaries of Norbert Zongo and his companions, falls within its mandate and the ambit of its normal activities. 72. For this reason, the Court is of the opinion that there is no basis to grant the claim for reimbursement of the costs incurred by MBDHP in organising human rights advocacy demonstrations, including those in favour of the Applicants in the instant case. Vi. EXPENDITURE AND COSTS INCURRED BY THE BENEFICIARIES 73. Under this heading, the Applicants are asking the Respondent State to reimburse not only lawyers’ fees but also the expenses incurred for transport to the Seat of the Court. A) Lawyers’ fees 74. In their Brief on Reparations, expenses incurred the Applicants submit that reimbursement at both the national and international levels in the one of the appropriate of the quest for justice is measures prescribed by Article 27(2) of the Protocol establishing we Ss