-33136. Thus, although the enactment of a law that expressly determines the inapplicability of the statute of limitations in this type of civil action could be a useful mechanism to put an end to future interpretations contrary to the Convention, the Court considers that there are not sufficient reasons to consider that this is an absolutely indispensable measure to ensure non-repetition of the facts, and therefore it is not appropriate to order it. It will be up to the State’s legislative authorities to determine the feasibility and relevance of this within the framework of their competencies. Nevertheless, it is the current and future function of all State organs involved in the administration of justice, at all levels, to exercise an adequate control of conventionality in situations similar to those that have arisen in this case. 137. In this regard, the Court has been informed about other persons who are in situations similar to those of the victims in this case, either at the domestic level or as petitioners before the Commission. In other words, relatives of victims of serious human rights violations who were also unable to gain material access to justice because the domestic courts considered that the civil statute of limitations was applicable in their cases, or whose cases were closed by decisions with the authority of res judicata. Although the Court has found it unnecessary to order the requested measures, it is likely that such cases will face difficulties similar to those encountered in the present case. Therefore, the Court urges the State to find a prompt solution for those other persons, so that they may have access to the compensation to which they are entitled. 138. Finally, with regard to “administrative measures” to bring Chilean judicial practices into line with international standards, it should be noted that the Commission did not specify what those measures would be and that the State, for its part, requested recognition that it has already adopted them.93 In the absence of the specification of other relevant administrative measures, the Court considers that it is not appropriate to order the State to adopt additional administrative measures, or indeed measures “of any other nature,” which were not specifically indicated by the Commission. E. Costs and expenses 139. The Court reiterates that, according to its case law, costs and expenses form part of the concept of reparation established in Article 63(1) of the Convention, because the activities carried out by the victims in order to obtain justice, both at the national and international levels, imply expenditures that must be compensated when the State’s international responsibility is declared in a judgment.94 Regarding the reimbursement of costs and expenses, it is for the Court to prudently assess their scope, based on the principle of equity and taking into account the claims of the victims or their representatives. These claims 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 updated subsequently, in keeping with the new costs and expenses incurred during the proceedings before this Court.95 The State indicated that Resolutions 233-2014 and 107-2017, which contain the orders dated September 26, 2014, and July 28, 2017, established the new distribution of matters heard by the specialized chambers of the Supreme Court, a measure that had a direct impact on the change in jurisprudential criteria explained above. 93 Regarding reimbursement of costs and expenses, it is for the Court to prudently assess their scope, including the expenses generated before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction and those incurred during the proceedings before the interAmerican system, taking into account the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of the international jurisdiction for the protection of human rights. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs, Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39. para. 82, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela, para. 381. 94 This appreciation may be made based on the principle of equity and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided that their quantum is reasonable. Moreover, it is not sufficient merely to forward evidentiary documents; rather, the parties are required to include arguments that relate the evidence to the facts that they represent and, in the case of alleged financial disbursements, clearly specify the items and their justification. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations, para. 42, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela, para. 382. 95