289. Second, the Court finds that Santa Fe Gaitán Calderón, Edith Laritza Osorio Gaytán, Neida Rocío Osorio Gaitán, Vannesa Judith Osorio Gaitán and Jersy Jeremías Osorio Gaitán have experienced great suffering or their life projects were affected as a result of the enforced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. Consequently, the Court establishes, in equity, the sum of US$45,000.00 (forty-five thousand United States dollars), for non-pecuniary damage, in favor of Santa Fe Gaitán Calderón, and of each child of Jeremías Osorio Rivera, namely: Edith Laritza Osorio Gaytán, Neida Rocío Osorio Gaitán, Vannesa Judith Osorio Gaitán and Jersy Jeremías Osorio Gaitán. 290. Lastly, considering the effects on their personal integrity suffered to different degrees as a result of the facts of this case, the Court establishes, in equity, the sum of US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) for Juana Rivera Lozano, and US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) for each of the following siblings of Jeremías Osorio Rivera: Epifanía Alejandrina, Elena Máxima, Adelaida, Silvia, Mario and Efraín, all with the surnames Osorio Rivera. In addition, the Court establishes, in equity, the sum of US$45,000.00 (forty-five thousand United States dollars) for Porfirio Osorio Rivera, who has been the main promoter of the search for justice for the disappearance of his brother, Jeremías Osorio Rivera. E. Costs and expenses 291. The representatives indicated that the next of kin incurred a series of expenses for the preliminary actions they took concerning the disappearance of Jeremías Osorio, for which they do not have receipts, but rather documents with the names of the persons who sponsored the initial investigation. In both the domestic and the international proceedings, the family of Jeremías Osorio Rivera has been supported by the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH), which, as a nonprofit organization, has not charged fees. Nevertheless, in the course of the domestic proceedings, as well as in the proceedings before the Commission and the Court, it has incurred expenses for telephone calls, photocopies, and travel within the country; and, for the hearing of September 29, 2013, they incurred expenses amounting to US$2,554.68 according to the supporting documents submitted. 292. The State considered it “unacceptable that this claim is submitted without providing receipts and other documents that would justify the admissibility of reparation.” According to the State, it was only admissible to pay costs and expenses if there were receipts, travel vouchers, or other documents that proved that the disbursement was made owing to these proceedings. 293. The Court reiterates that, pursuant to its case law, 403 costs and expenses form part of the concept of reparation, because the activities deployed by the victims in order to obtain justice, at both the domestic and the international level, entail disbursements that must be compensated when the State’s international responsibility has been declared in a judgment. Regarding the reimbursement of costs and expenses, the Court must assess them prudently; they include the expenses arising before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, and also those arising during the proceedings before the inter-American system, taking into account the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of the international jurisdiction for the protection of human rights. This assessment may be carried out based on the principle of equity and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided the quantum is reasonable. 404 403 Cf. Case of Velázquez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 42, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 258. 404 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 82, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 316. 95