93 American Convention, which entered into force from 1998 to 2000, after the judgments convicting Mr. Canese had been delivered. 211. With regard to the other claims for reparations, the Court considers that this judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation. D) COSTS AND EXPENSES 212. As the Court has indicated on previous occasions, costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparation embodied in Article 63(1) of the American Convention, because the measures taken by the victim in order to obtain justice, at the domestic and the international level, imply expenditure that must be compensated when the State’s international responsibility has been declared in a judgment against it. Regarding reimbursement, the Court must prudently assess their scope, which includes the expenses incurred before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, and also those incurred 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 based on the principle of fairness and by evaluating the expenses indicated by the Inter-American Commission and by the representatives, providing the amount is reasonable.175 213. With regard to recognition of costs and expenses, legal assistance to the victim starts before the domestic judicial bodies and continues in the successive instances of the Inter-American System for the protection of human rights; namely, in the proceedings before the Commission and before the Court. Consequently, for these purposes, the concept of costs includes those that correspond to access to justice at the national level, and those that refer to justice at the international level before the two instances: the Commission and the Court.176 214. In relation to the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic judicial bodies, the Court notes that, in decision and judgment No. 804 issued on April 27, 2004 (supra para. 69(50)), the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay ordered “that the complainants should pay the costs and expenses of the whole proceeding”; in other words, Mr. Canese does not have to pay these expenses. Hence, the Court does not consider it necessary to take into account expenses incurred in the domestic judicial sphere when determining the total amount that Paraguay must reimburse Mr. Canese for the concept of costs and expenses. 215. The Court takes into consideration that the victim incurred some expenditure in processing the case before the Inter-American Commission and that he acted through representatives before the Commission and the Court (supra para. 69(69)). Accordingly, it considers it fair to order the State to reimburse Ricardo Canese the total amount of $5,500.00 (five thousand five hundred United States dollars). Of this total amount, the sum of US$1,500.00 (one thousand five hundred United States dollars) corresponds to the expenses incurred by Mr. Canese and the sum of US$4,000.00 (four thousand United States dollars) corresponds to the costs and 175 Cf. Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 2, para. 242; Case of 19 Merchants, supra note 2, para. 283; and Case of Molina-Theissen. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 95. 176 Cf. Case of 19 Merchants, supra note 2, para. 284; Case of Molina-Theissen. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 96; and Case of Maritza-Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 183.