41 134. Subsequently, the representatives stated, in their brief on reparations, that as of that date and up to now the victim has had to pay additional professional fees equal to US$52,270.00 (fifty-two thousand two hundred and seventy dollars of the United States of America with sixty-four cents). In this regard, along with the mentioned brief they forwarded a “breakdown of invoices for professional fees” from […] Alejandro Ponce Martínez and [a] breakdown of expenses [made between] March 23, 2007 and March 8, 2009,” that ascend to US$27,269.64 (twenty-seven thousand two hundred and sixty-nine dollars of the United States of America with sixty four cents) and US$7,740.24 (seven thousand seven hundred and forty dollars of the United States of America with twenty-four cents), respectively. (fr. 366 and 367) Likewise, they forwarded a “breakdown of invoices for professional fees” from […] Alejandro Ponce Villacís for the period between March 30, 2007, and November 5, 2009,” which amount to US$25,000.58 (twenty-five thousand dollars of the United States of America with fifty-eight cents). The representatives stated that Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga has had to incur in costs and expenses for a total of US$106,093.00 (one hundred and six thousand ninety-three dollars of the United States of America), as a consequence of the State’s violations to Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention. 135. Additionally, the representatives requested that the fees of the attorney Wilson Yupanqui, in the amount of US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand dollars of the United States of America), be considered part of the costs since he intervened in the initial stages of the administrative proceedings. 136. At the public hearing on reparations, the State mentioned that the representatives have referred to the expenses originated for professional fees, for which they have enclosed several tables and invoices that have been issued to Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga, without there being any evidence if these amounts were actually paid or if there is a contract for the offering of professional services between the victim and her representatives before the Inter-American System. It added that the amounts requested by the victim, and specifically, the professional fees, are “not in accord with the socioeconomic reality of Ecuador[,…] they exceed the parameters of rationality and necessity.” The State expressed that the Court must consider these expenses provided that the representatives adequately justify the relationship between those expenses and their actual payment, taking into account the principle of equity and assessing the expenses proven by the parties provided that their quantum is reasonable. There is no evidence whatsoever of other expenses incurred in by the Salvador family during the domestic and international processes, nor have they been argued. 137. On its part, the Commission requested that the Court order, once it has heard the injured party or its representatives, that the State pay the costs and expenses duly proven by the victim. 138. The Tribunal has stated that “the claims made by the victims or their representatives in the matter of costs and expenses, and the evidence that substantiate them, must be presented to the Court in the first procedural moment granted to them, that is, in the brief of pleadings and motions, or in the present case it could also be when filing the brief of reparation claims, without detriment of updating said claims at a later time, pursuant with the new costs and expenses incurred in as a result of the proceedings before this Court.”173 Likewise, the Court reiterates that “the forwarding of evidentiary documents is not enough, instead the parties must present arguments that connect the evidence with the fact that is considered 173 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. V. Ecuador, supra note 124, para. 275; Case of Vélez Loor V. Panamá, supra note 19, para. 218, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) V. Brazil, supra note 8, para. 317.