87 286. For their part, the representatives indicated that the domestic proceeding, which has taken place over approximately nine years, was sponsored by Rebeca Ibsen Castro from the joinder to the Trujillo Oroza case (supra para. 140) to date. Therefore, they requested an amount of US$70,000.00 (seventy thousand United States dollars) for costs in her favor. Also, they indicated that the expenses that correspond to the international proceedings before the Inter-American System were paid for by the “Ressini Enriquez & Asoc.” lawyer’s office and include the transfer of three people -two lawyers and one of the victims- to the seat of the Commission in Washington, D.C., “the continuing work of the proceedings, the logistic expenses for the travel, accommodation and food of the parties between La Paz and Santa Cruz, the costs of expert reports [and] copies, messenger services and others.” Thus, they requested the sum of US$90,000.00 (ninety thousand United States dollars) for this item. 287. The State contested the claim of the injured party and indicated that it is not in keeping with the tariff of the Bar Association of La Paz. In this regard, in its final written arguments, the State indicated that the tariffs of the Bar Association “for 2005 and 2009 […] establish as [professional fees] for a criminal proceeding a maximum of 12,000 bolivianos,” equivalent to US$1,697.00 (one thousand six hundred and ninety-seven United States dollars). Furthermore, it argued that from the analysis of all the case files reveals that “the expenses incurred by the family before the domestic system of justice arise from the approximately 200 petitions submitted by Mrs. Rebeca Ibsen during the criminal proceedings held in Santa Cruz de la Sierra,” and amount to around US$3,000.00 (three thousand United States dollars). 288. Regarding the reimbursement of costs and expenses, the Court must assess their scope prudently, which includes the expenses generated before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, and also those generated during the proceedings before the InterAmerican 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 carried out based on the equity principle and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided that the quantum is reasonable.290 289. The Court observes that the representatives have not provided evidence to support their claims concerning the supposed expenses incurred by them and by the Ibsen family during the processing of this case. However, this Court has indicated previously that “[tlhe quantum for this item can be established […] based on the principle of equity, even in the absence of probative elements regarding the precise amount of the expenses that have been incurred by the parties, provided that the amounts respond to criteria of reasonableness and proportionality.”291 290. The Court finds it evident that the Ibsen family and their representatives incurred expenses during the domestic and international proceeding in this case. In particular, the Court notes that Mrs. Rebeca Ibsen Castro took responsiblity for promoting the case at the domestic level for more than ten years. Thus, with regard to the objections put forward by 290 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs, supra note 289, para. 82; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 285, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 258. 291 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs, supra note 12, para. 213; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79. para. 169; and Case of Trujillo-Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and Costs. supra note 160, para. 128.