101 further the proceedings under domestic venue, as well as those incurred internationally processing the case before the Commission and the Court, duly proven by said representatives. Pleadings of the representatives 229. The representatives, in turn, asked the Court to order the State to pay the costs incurred within the country to further the court, administrative and legislative proceedings under domestic venue, as well as those incurred internationally to process the case before the Commission and the Court. In this regard, they argued that the State must pay US $25,668.86 (twenty-five thousand six hundred and sixtyeight United States dollars and eighty-six cents) in favor of the non-governmental organization Tierraviva, as well as US $5.500.00 (five thousand five hundred) in favor of CEJIL for costs and expenses. Pleadings of the State 230. The State pointed out it does not accept payment of the amount requested by the representatives of the alleged victims for costs and expenses. In this regard, the State alleged that: a) it was the attorneys of the Community who “out of negligence lost the case in which it would have been possible to elucidate the issue of the paramount right,” for which reason it is not possible to “come and ask [the] Court to order payment of legal expenses, when the courts and the Supreme Court of Justice have established, in accordance with domestic legislation, that the latter must be covered in the legal system where the case was heard, thus favoring the Indigenous Community in this case,” and b) “the pertinence of the travel, communications, stationery and sending of packages has not been justified, [...a]nd it has not been shown that the fees of doctor Balmaceda are based on any justifiable parameter [or] that the work was in fact done.” Considerations of the Court 231. As the Court has pointed out previously,225 costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparation embodied in Article 63(1) of the American Convention, as the activities carried out by the victims and their representatives with the aim of obtaining justice, both under domestic and international venues, entails disbursements that must be compensated when the State is found to be responsible in a judgment against it. With regard to reimbursements, the Court must judiciously assess their scope, including the expenses incurred before the authorities under domestic venue and those incurred in the course of the proceeding before the interAmerican system, bearing in mind the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of international jurisdiction for the protection of human rights. This assessment can be based on the principle of fairness and taking into account the expenses listed by the parties, as long as their quantum is reasonable. 225 See Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 2, para. 205; Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 14, para. 143, and Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 196, para. 115.