57 of kin of the victim to establish his whereabouts and, subsequently, to obtain justice both under domestic and international jurisdiction, involve expenses that must be compensated when the State is found to be internationally responsible in a judgment against it. With respect to the reimbursement, it is for the Court to judiciously assess the amount, which includes expenses incurred before the authorities under domestic jurisdiction and those incurred in the proceedings before the inter-American system, taking into account the certification of expenses made, the circumstances of the specific case, and the nature of international jurisdiction for protection of human rights.107 This assessment can be based on the principle of equity and assessing the expenses stated by the parties, insofar as their quantum is reasonable.108 151. In the instant case, the Court notes that there is a discrepancy between the Inter-American Commission and the representatives of the next of kin of the victim regarding legal costs and expenses. On the one hand, the Commission requested payment of certain amounts in its January 4, 2002 brief on reparations (supra 18). In it, the Commission pointed out that “continuation of the processing of the case before the [...] Court will require new legal costs and expenses in the near future [that] should also receive [...] compensation,” but in the brief with its final arguments, on July 4, 2003 (supra 29), it ratified the amounts requested on January 4, 2002. In their July 4, 2003 brief with their final arguments (supra 29), the representatives, in turn, demanded substantially higher amounts than those requested by the Commission with regard to legal costs and expenses, pointing out that “continuation of the processing of the case before the [...] Court has required new legal costs and expenses.” Finally, the Court notes that neither the Commission nor the representatives supplied receipts or vouchers to substantiate their claims regarding this aspect of the compensation. 152. The Court deems it equitable to order payment of US$40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars) for legal costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings and in the international human rights proceedings. Payment must be distributed as follows: a) US$12,000.00 (twelve thousand United States dollars) to María del Carmen Verdú; b) US$12,000.00 (twelve thousand United States dollars) to Daniel A. Stragá; c) US$7,000.00 (seven thousand United States dollars) to CORREPI; d) US$7,000.00 (seven thousand United States dollars) to CELS; and e) US$2,000.00 (two thousand United States dollars) to CEJIL. 153. This Court deems that to further the proceedings regarding investigation of the facts, the next of kin of the victim will need to incur expenses under domestic jurisdiction, and for this it grants in equity US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) to Graciela Rosa Scavone. XIV METHOD OF COMPLIANCE 107 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 4, para. 193; “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 4, para. 181; and Cantos Case, supra note 6, para. 72. 108 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 4, para. 193; “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 4, para. 181; and Cantos Case, supra note 6, para. 72.