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
court32 . The Respondent State itself admits that a global amount of nearly twelve times
higher, that is, 20,000,000 CFA F wou ld be reasonable. On the other hand, the amount
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 lawyers fees on the
basis of equity, going by what it considers reasonable in each case33 . In Its opinion, in
the instant case, and considering both the amounts set by the Indicative Scale, the
amounts stipulated in the fees agreement and the amounts 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
See IACHR· Garrido and Balgorria 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
m a proceeding before an international tribunal, such as the evidence Introduced to demonstrate the facts
alleged, full knowledge of mternahonal Junsprudence and, in general, everything that would demonstrate
the quality and relevance of the work performed "
32
33 See In particular· IACHR. Garrido and Balgoma v Argentina (Reparalions 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: Cest1 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. Umted Kmgdom, 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