420. The State recalled that the Court had not admitted the representative’s claims concerning reparations and costs because they were time-barred. Regarding the requests made on July 29, 2013, the State “rejected the new claims made by the representative regarding expenses […] because the expenses must be directly related to this case and the development of the proceedings in it, and those sums that do not correspond to the specific case and/or are not strictly related to it are excluded.” 421. The Court recalls that, in the instant case, the representative’s claims are admissible as regards the costs and expenses produced following the presentation of the motions and arguments brief (supra para. 33). The Court has indicated that the claims for costs and expenses of the victims or their representatives, and evidence that supports them, must be submitted to the Court at the first procedural moment granted them; that is, in the motions and arguments brief, without prejudice to the possibility of updating those claims subsequently, in keeping with the new costs and expenses incurred during the proceedings before this Court. 583 In addition, the Court reiterates that it is not sufficient to merely forward probative documents; rather the parties must also include arguments that relate the evidence to the fact that it is considered to represent and that, in the case of alleged financial disbursements, the items and their justification must be clearly established. 584 422. The Court notes that the expenses of the representative, incurred after the presentation of the motions and arguments brief, for which evidence was provided, amount to approximately 585 Nevertheless, some vouchers refer to expenses covered by resources from the US$237,880.14. 586 and some vouchers refer, in general, to expenses for office Victim’s Legal Assistance Fund, supplies, without an indication of the specific percentage that corresponds to the expenses for this 587 case. In fairness, these concepts have been deducted from the calculation made by the Court. In addition, those expenses the quantum of which is not reasonable will be deducted from the assessment made by the Court. Also, as it has in other cases, the Court can infer that the representative incurred expenses during the processing of the case before the inter-American human rights system derived from the litigation and from attending the hearing held before the Court and, consequently, they will be taken into account when establishing the respective costs and expenses. 423. Consequently, the Court decides to establish a reasonable sum of US$40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars) for costs and expenses for the work carried out in the litigation of the case at the international level, including the expenses arising from the participation of the two lawyers who collaborated in the defense of the case as of the public hearing. The amounts mentioned must be delivered directly to Ms. J. The Court considers that, during the proceeding of 583 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 275, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 317. 584 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 277, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 317. 585 The representative provided a copy of the invoice of an expert in lip-reading. However, this expertise was not presented to the Court so that is cost will not be taken into account. 586 The Court notes that the representative provided two vouchers for the payment of lunch for the whole team of lawyers, as well as a voucher for the expenses incurred by a representative during his stay in San José that were not covered by the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund. In this regard, the Court recalls that the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund covered the payment of a per diem of one of Ms. J.’s representatives. Cf. Invoices dated May 16, 2013 (file of annexes to the final written arguments of the representatives and to the brief dated June 24, 2013, folio 4947), and invoice and receipt dated May 17, 2013 (file of annexes to the final written arguments of the representatives and to the brief dated June 24, 2013, folio 4951). 587 Cf. Invoice dated June 26, 2013, for £207.96 (pounds sterling) (file of annexes to the final written arguments of the representatives and to the brief dated June 24, 2013, folio 4959). 122