146 witnesses, expert witnesses and lawyers to San José, Costa Rica, for the public hearing before the Court amount to US$44,225.68 (forty-four thousand two hundred and twenty-five United States dollars and sixty-eight cents); and (d) With regard to the costs or legal fees, in keeping with the domestic law, legal fees are established according to amounts established by the Lawyers’ Professional Association. In article 16(2)3 of Resolution 1 of June 5, 2004, this Professional Association established that, in the case of actions for annulment or re-establishment of a right processed in the administrative jurisdiction, that is for the extra-contractual responsibility of the State, the minimum honoraria is 30% of the amount collected. When the action filed produces results in two instances, article 3(3) of this resolution establishes “as a minimum, 30% of the value of the honoraria agreed for the first instance.” Consequently, this means 30% for the first instance and 9% for the second instance, for a total of 39%. The State’s arguments 413. Regarding the payment of costs and expenses, the State indicated that: (a) In order to recognize an expense, it must be necessary and reasonable according to the characteristics of the case, and made in direction relation to the case; (b) It is unable to accept the reimbursement of expenses unless there is a minimum certainty about the amounts and concepts; (c) The costs arising from the administrative proceedings will have to be defined in the final judgments that are issued in these proceedings; and (d) To the extent that the principle of gratuity rules in criminal matters, and that the next of kin of the victims have not filed specific actions within the investigation that is underway, there are no costs to be reimbursed in this respect. The Court’s findings 414. As the Court has indicated previously,281 costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparations embodied in Article 63(1) of the American Convention, because the activity deployed by the next of kin of the victims or their representatives in order to obtain justice at both the national and the international level entails expenditure that must be compensated when the State’s international responsibility is declared in a judgment against it. Regarding their reimbursement, the Court must prudently assess their scope, which includes the expenses incurred in both the domestic and the inter-American jurisdiction, taking into account the authentication of the expenses incurred, 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 equity and taking into account the expenses indicated and authenticated by the parties, provided the quantum is reasonable. 281 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 5, para. 208; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 9, para. 237; and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 12, para. 315.