217. The Court reiterates that, in keeping with its case law, 245 costs and expenses are part of the concept of reparation, because the actions taken by the victims in order to obtain justice, at both the national and the international level, entail expenditure that must be compensated when the international responsibility of the State is declared in a guilty verdict. 218. Regarding the reimbursement of expenses, it is incumbent on the Court to assess their scope prudently, and this includes the expenses incurred before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, as well as those incurred during the proceedings before the interAmerican 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 made based on the principle of equity and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided that their quantum is reasonable. 219. In this regard, the Court observes that there are no probative documents in the case file to justify the amounts requested by the representatives for professional fees and services. In addition, the amounts requested for fees were not accompanied by arguments with specific evidence relating to their reasonableness and scope. 246 220. Consequently, in addition to the amount relating to the part corresponding to the judicial proceedings established previously in the compensation and based on the Compliance Agreement, the Court establishes, in equity, the sum of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) for costs and expenses during the processing of the case before the inter-American human rights system in favor of the representative Jorge Sosa Meza. F. Reimbursement of expenses to the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund 221. The representative requested the support of the Court’s Assistance Fund to cover the expenses represented by the participation in the public hearing held in this case of two presumed victims, five family members, four expert witnesses, four witnesses and two representatives. 222. In Orders of the President of the Court of December 20, 2012, and January 24, 2013, authorization was given for the Fund to cover the travel and accommodation costs required for Mrs. Suárez Peralta to appear before the Court and give her testimony at the public hearing, and to cover the costs of preparing and sending the affidavit of Dennis Cerezo Cervantes and of two other deponents chosen by the representative. 223. The State was given the opportunity to present its observations on the disbursements made in this case, which amounted to US$1,436.00 (one thousand four hundred and thirty-six United States dollars). Ecuador did not present observations in this regard. In application of article 5 of the Rules of the Fund, the Court must evaluate the admissibility of ordering the defendant State to reimburse the disbursements made to the Legal Assistance Fund. 245 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 39, and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo, supra, para. 342. 246 Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 287, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. ("In vitro fertilization"), supra, para. 372. 58