59 incurred in processing the case at both the national level and before the Inter-American system that are duly proven. 242. In their brief with pleas and motions, the representatives indicated that they would like “a reasonable quantification” to be made in this regard and that, “before the expiry of the period for the autonomous submission of evidence, [they would forward] the documentation authenticating the quantification of the respective costs and expenses. In the testimony he gave during the public hearing in this case, Mr. Castañeda Gutman recalled that his lawyers had acted pro bono, and with their final written arguments, the representatives attached a report “on expenses related to the preparation and holding of the [public] hearing incurred by Jorge Castañeda, with the corresponding vouchers.” These vouchers related to expenses for air transport, accommodation and food, for a total of US$6,090.80 (six thousand and ninety United States dollars and eighty cents). 243. The State indicated that “[...] a verdict to pay the costs and expenses would not be in order for the simple reason that, since the State has not committed any of the violations attributed to it by [Mr. Castañeda Gutman], it is for him and his legal representatives to bear the financial consequences of a notoriously inadmissible juridical strategy, as well as their unjustified recourse to international bodies.” The State also pointed out that it had been indicated “repeatedly and publicly on several occasions, that the legal assistance he has received was pro bono and that his lawyers have not charged fees. Consequently, his claim to obtain compensation for expenses arising from activities related to this case before the domestic and the international courts are unfounded, and [Mr. Castañeda Gutman] himself has stated that these procedures did not result in any expenditure for him.” 244. As indicated previously, “the claims of the victims or their representatives in relation to costs and expenses, and the evidence that they provide, must be submitted to the Court at the first procedural moment granted to them; that is, in the brief with pleas and motions, without detriment to those claims being updated subsequently, in accordance with the new costs and expenses that have been incurred because of the proceedings before the Court”78 (supra para. 75). The victim only forwarded the Court vouchers for his expenses arising from the public hearing in this case. The Court observes that, among those documents, there was a voucher for accommodation in the name of someone who did not take part in the hearing and was not accredited by [Mr. Castañeda Gutman] as his representative. However, the Court also notes that the expenses of one of the victim’s representatives who did travel to the seat of the Court and take part in the public hearing were not included. Bearing these considerations in mind and also the evidence provided, the Court determines, based on the equity principle, that the State shall deliver the sum of US$7,000.00 (seven thousand United States dollars) to the victim for costs and expenses. This amount includes the future expenses, which Mr. Castañeda Gutman may incur at the domestic level or during monitoring compliance with this judgment, and shall be delivered within six months of notification of this judgment. The victim shall deliver the amount he considers appropriate to his representatives before the domestic legal system and in the proceedings before the inter-American system. E) 78 Cf. supra note 21. METHOD OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE PAYMENTS ORDERED