30 thousand nine hundred and nineteen United States dollars and thirty-eight cents) for the “expenses CELS […] has incurred in the processing of the case under the Inter-American system since 2000.” The available evidence relates, for the most part, to the expenses incurred in the processing of the case before this Court. Lastly, the representatives asked for US$ 2,000.00 (two thousand United States dollars) on account of “legal counseling and representation” provided by CEJIL. No evidence of such expenses has been submitted. 131. The State requested that “in awarding possible costs, the acknowledgment of international responsibility be taken into consideration.” In this regard, it quoted the following paragraph of the Judgment of reparations and costs issued in the Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname: In view of the foregoing and of the fact that Suriname has expressly accepted its international responsibility and has not in any way hindered the proceedings for determining reparations, the Court 88 dismisses the Commission’s request for reimbursement of costs. 132. It is the Court’s view that such paragraph does not apply to the instant case. Indeed, though the fact that Suriname had acknowledged its responsibility and refrained from hindering the Inter-American proceedings were taken into consideration, these were not the only elements assessed by the Court upon rendering said Judgment. Accordingly, in the paragraphs preceding the one quoted by the State, the Court considered that the facts of that case had been reported to the Commission fifteen days after their occurrence; that the victims’ next of kin had not been put through protracted procedures to be able to submit the case to the Commission, as the Commission took the case right away; that they had not been forced to seek professional counseling; and that the expenses incurred by the Commission in the processing of the case were funded out of the budget of the Organization of American States. None of these elements are found in the instant case. 133. Based on the above considerations and the evidence submitted, the Court finds, on equitable grounds, that the State is to pay US$ 10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) to Mr. Kimel as costs and expenses. Said sum includes any expenses Mr. Kimel may be incurred in the future at the domestic level or in regarding monitoring compliance herewith. Said sum shall be delivered to the victim within a period of one year as from the date of notice of this Judgment. In turn, Mr. Kimel will deliver such amount as he may deem appropriate to his representatives in the domestic proceedings and proceedings before the Inter-American system, based on the assistance received therefrom. E) METHOD OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE PAYMENTS ORDERED 134. The compensation amounts and the amounts set as costs and expenses are to be delivered directly to Mr. Kimel. Should he pass away before the relevant compensation is settled, such compensation shall be paid to his heirs or beneficiaries, pursuant to the applicable domestic legislation.89 135. The State shall comply with its obligations by tendering United States dollars or an equivalent sum in Argentine legal tender, calculated at the rate of exchange prevailing between the two currencies in the New York market, United States on the day before payment is made. 88 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Surinam. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 115. 89 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 294; Case of Chaparro Alvarez y Lapo Iñíguez, supra note 17, para. 283, and Case of Albán-Cornejo et al., supra note 75, para. 169.