of USD 31,778.10 in equity for expenses. The representatives, in their final written arguments, itemized expenses incurred after the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence had been submitted, for the preparation of the exercise of reconstruction of the facts held in Lima, Peru, and participation in the public hearing in San Jose, Costa Rica. They estimated that APRODEH had spent USD 3,719 for this purpose, and CEJIL, USD 8,404. 487. The State held that in order to calculate court costs and attorney fees, it is necessary to verify whether the representatives’ expenditures are reasonable for the task of defending the alleged victims. In general terms, it recognized the possibility of payment vouchers, internal documents of the representatives, proformas, and so forth, recording expenditures in amounts that are unreasonable for the defense of the alleged victims and bear no relationship to the current international process. The State reiterated in its final written arguments that court costs and attorney fees are admissible only if there are receipts, travel tickets or other documents confirming that the expenses were in fact incurred for this process, and emphasized that APRODEH had not submitted any receipts or other documents and that the claims for court costs and attorney fees should be directly related to the instant case and the development of the process per se, with the understanding that all claimed amounts that do not pertain to and are not associated with this particular case are precluded. Considerations of the Court 488. The Court reiterates that, pursuant to its case law, 513 court costs and attorney fees are part of the body of reparations because the activities undertaken by the victims to obtain justice both nationally and internationally require outlays that should be covered when the Court judges the State to be internationally responsible. With respect to reimbursement for these costs and fees, it is the Court’s responsibility to prudently assess their scope, which includes expenses incurred before domestic legal authorities, as well as those incurred in the course of the proceedings before the inter-American system, keeping in mind the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of international jurisdiction for the protection of human rights. This assessment can be done on the basis of the principle of equity and taking into account the expenses declared by the parties, provided the amounts are reasonable. 514 489. The Court has held that “the claims of the victims or their representatives in relation to costs and expenses, and the evidence supporting them, must be presented to the Court at the first procedural opportunity granted them, namely, in the brief containing pleadings and motions, without prejudice to those claims being updated subsequently, to include new costs and expenses incurred as a result of the proceedings before this Court.”515 The Court also recalls that it is not enough to merely remit probative documents; rather the parties must develop the reasoning linking the evidence to the fact under consideration and, in the case of alleged financial outlays, the items of expenditure and their justification must be described clearly.516 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 42, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 337. 513 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 Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 337. 514 Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 79, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 297. 515 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 277, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 337. 516