144 a. US$ 10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) for the expenses and costs incurred by the Tekojojá Foundation to bring the case to the interAmerican system, and to file the petition of generic habeas corpus that began in 1993 and was granted in 1998, and b. US$ 30,237.42 (thirty thousand two hundred thirty-seven dollars and forty-two cents, United States currency) as reimbursement of the expenses that CEJIL incurred to litigate the case before the inter-American system. Pleadings of the State 327. The State asked that the Court order each party to bear its own costs and expenses. As for the claims made by the representatives, the State asserted that: a) the Tekojojá Foundation’s claim seeking reimbursement of the costs and expenses of its work on the domestic front, specifically for filing the petition of generic habeas corpus, should not be considered, as the Foundation should go to the domestic courts to claim costs and expenses; b) the Tekojojá’s claim seeking reimbursement of expenses allegedly incurred at the international level is not duly substantiated; c) the expenses the Foundation incurred at the international level are not itemized and not supported by proper documentation; consequently, the presumption is that they never existed; d) no proof is offered of the Foundation’s participation in the hearings conducted before the Commission; therefore, the State is not obliged to pay for costs and expenses associated with that case; and e) the State finds it “odd” that CEJIL is seeking to recover costs and expenses that its representatives incurred to participate in the hearings conducted at the Commission, as both CEJIL and the Commission are headquartered in Washington. The State added that it had no knowledge of CEJIL executives traveling to Asunción to participate in the friendly settlement process or for any other purpose. Consequently, the State asked the Court to deny the claim seeking costs and expenses in the instant case. Considerations of the Court 328. As the Court has stated on previous occasions,229 costs and expenses are included under the concept of reparation embodied in Article 63(1) of the American Convention, because the activities carried out by the next of kin of the victim with the aim of attaining justice, both under domestic and international jurisdiction, entail disbursements which should be compensated when the State is found to be internationally responsible by means of a condemnatory judgment. As regards its reimbursement, it is for the Court to prudently assess its scope, including expenses incurred before the authorities under domestic jurisdiction and those incurred in the course of the proceedings before the inter-American system, bearing in mind the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of international jurisdiction for the 229 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 26, para. 242; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 26, para. 283; and Case of Molina Theissen, supra note 26, para. 95.