69 by the failure to execute the judicial rulings issued in his favor determines the existence of nonpecuniary damage that can be repaired through compensation, in accordance with equity.244 Therefore, the Court sets in equity the sum of US$ 7,000.00 (seven thousand United States dollars), as compensation for non-pecuniary damage, in favor of Mr. Oscar Muelle Flores. The State must pay this amount within six months of notification of this Judgment. F. Costs and expenses 268. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to pay the costs and expenses incurred in bringing the case before the domestic courts and before the inter-American system. In particular, they asked the Court to order the reimbursement of expenses incurred by the victim in the course of the domestic judicial proceedings, the lawyers’ fees for litigation, and the costs of sending documents to the Commission. They explained that, given the long period of time that had elapsed, it was not possible to specify the exact amount of those expenses since the receipts had been mislaid. Nevertheless, they requested that, in light of the Court’s rulings on other occasions, the expenses incurred be recognized, in equity. 269. The State pointed out that the expenses requested in relation to the domestic proceedings were filed as consequential damages by the representatives, when they should have been requested under the heading of costs and expenses. It also indicated that the representatives did not provide documentation to accredit such expenses. 270. The Commission did not comment on the costs and expenses. 271. The Court reiterates that, pursuant to its case law, costs and expenses form part of the concept of reparation, because the actions taken by victims to obtain justice, in both the domestic and the international sphere, entail disbursements that should be compensated when the international responsibility of the State has been declared in a judgment against it.245 Regarding the reimbursement of expenses, it is for the Court to prudently assess their scope, and this includes the expenses generated during the proceedings before the Inter-American 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 based on the principle of equity, taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided that their quantum is reasonable.246 272. The Court has indicated that “the claims of the victims or their representatives for costs and expenses, and the evidence that supports them, must be submitted to the Court at the first procedural opportunity granted to them, that is, in the pleadings and motions brief, without prejudice to such claims being subsequently updated, in keeping with the new costs and expenses incurred during the proceedings before this Court.” 247 In addition, the Court reiterates that it is not sufficient merely to forward probative documents; rather, the parties must include arguments that relate the 244 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru, supra, para. 133 and Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 207. 245 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 79, and Case of Órdenes Guerra et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 139. 246 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina, Reparations and costs supra, para. 82, and Case of Órdenes Guerra et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 95. 247 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 79 and 82, and Case of Órdenes Guerra et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 139.