F.1. Arguments of the parties 141. The Commission requested the Court, “after hearing the representatives of the victims and their families,” to order the State to pay costs and expenses that have been generated both domestically and before the Inter-American System of Human Rights. The representative noted that he has incurred expenses to deal with the case before the Inter-American System for the last 17 years, and as such requested that the Court order, in equity, the payment of $ 15,000.00 dollars of the United States of America. The State indicated that the cost must be “appropriately justified[.]” F.2. Considerations of the Court 142. Costs and expenses constitute the amounts incurred both before the domestic authorities, as well as those before the Inter-American System. In this regard, the Court reiterates that the claims of the victims or their representatives concerning costs and expenses, and the evidence to support them, must be submitted to the Court at the first procedural occasion granted to them, namely, in the brief of pleadings and motions, notwithstanding the possibility that these claims may be updated subsequently, in keeping with the new costs and expenses that may have been incurred as a result of the proceedings before this Court.135 Furthermore, the Court reiterates that it is not sufficient that the parties merely submit probative documents; rather they are required to submit arguments that connect the evidence to the fact that it is supposed to represent, and in the case of alleged financial disbursements, the items and their justification must be clearly explained. 136 143. The Court notes that the representatives did not present any evidence regarding the processing of the present case before the Inter-American Commission. Moreover, regarding some of the evidence regarding costs incurred due to this process, the representative did not specify or argue what sort of cost was applicable to the receipts and their relation to this case. Nevertheless, in this regard, it is also evident from the case file that the representative presented some receipts regarding costs incurred from the public hearing held in the present case (supra paras. 8 and 9), such as travel, housing, visas, yellow fever vaccinations, and exit fees. 137 The Court also takes into account that in this case there was no investigation conducted at 135 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. V. Ecuador, supra note 16, para. 275; Case of Salvador Chiriboga V. Ecuador, supra note 118, para. 138, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú. Merits Reparations and Costs, supra note 7, para. 137. 136 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; Case of Gelman V. Uruguay. Merits and Reparaciones. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 302, and Case of Salvador Chiriboga V. Ecuador. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 3, 2011. Series C No. 222, para. 138. 137 These costs ascend to approximately US $2,568.12 (two thousand five hundred and sixty-eight dollars and twelve cents of the United States of America). “Annex 4. Documents regarding airplane tickets, accommodation, and food in Costa Rica, sending mail, obtaining visas, vaccinations, exit fees in Costa Rica, and so on.” (Case file of Merits, tome II, folios 1301 to 1311 and 1323) . 52