12 KIM v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT documents or bank account, he asked the Court to order payment of any award into the bank account of his representative, Ms Tseytlina. 60. The Government considered that the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction. 61. The Court awards the applicant 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. B. Costs and expenses 62. The applicant also claimed EUR 1,070 for the work of two representatives in the domestic proceedings and before the Court. 63. The Government submitted that the applicant failed to submit supporting documents. 64. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the amount claimed, that is, EUR 1,070, covering costs under all heads plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. C. Default interest 65. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 46 OF THE CONVENTION 66. Article 46 of the Convention provides: “1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties. 2. The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.” 67. The Court reiterates that by Article 46 of the Convention the Contracting Parties have undertaken to abide by the final judgments of the Court in any case to which they are parties, execution being supervised by the Committee of Ministers. It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a breach of the Convention or the Protocols thereto imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order