75 the purchase of three computers. Besides, it questioned that many expenses that were charged were improper as they were personal expenses of the representatives or for the lack of demonstration of the necessary and reasonable connection to the case. Furthermore, within the concept of expenses, the State considered that the amount for the area of expenses denominated “per diem of Carlos Pelayo Möler” must be included in the group of fees. Secondly, in relation with the professional fees, the State alleged that if, in principle, the lawyer Astrid Odete Escobedo Barrondo had convened –through a contract of mandate for legal representation- with the next of kin of Mr. Chitay Nech to charge 10 percent (10%) of the reparations received by them, subsequently she presented “a type of receipt for fees” for US$169.400.00 (one hundred sixty nine thousand, four hundred dollars of the United States of America). The State also questioned the excessiveness of the remuneration for the psychologist Berta Graciela Escobedo Barrondo, who is also the sister of the legal representative. Equally, it referred to the number of persons that made up the team of representation as excessive and that no receipts had been presented for the payments of the services rendered, but only “receipts in simple paper.” Third, in reference to future expenses, the State considered that those were too high. 284. The Tribunal has signaled that “the claims of the victims or their representatives in regards to costs and expenses, and the evidence that sustains it, must be presented to the Court in the first procedural moment granted, namely, in the brief of motions and pleadings, without detriment that such claims are updated at a later time, pursuant to the new costs and expenses that are incurred in the proceeding before this Court.”285 Also, the Court reiterates that “the remission of evidentiary documents is not sufficient but it is required that the parties make an argument that relates the evidence with the fact that it is considered to represent, and that, when dealing with allegations of economic spending, the areas are to be established with clarity and justification.”286 285. Regarding the repayment of the costs and expenses, it corresponds to the Tribunal to prudently consider its reach, which covers the expenses generated before the authorities of the internal jurisdiction, as well as those generated during the course of the proceeding before the Inter-American System, taking into account the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of the international jurisdiction of the protection of human rights. This consideration can be made with a basis in the principle of equity and taking into account the expenses signaled by the parties, as long as their quantum is reasonable.287 286. In this regard, the Court stated that the representatives incurred expenses related with the processing of the present case before the Commission and before this Tribunal relative to transportation, courier services, communication and notary services, among others, for which together with the brief of final arguments they issued the proof of payment of said expenses. The representatives also requested the payment of fees. 285 Cf. Case Molina Theissen V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs, supra note 196, para. 122; Case Anzualdo Castro V. Perú, supra note 86, para. 228, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 302. 286 Case Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez V. Ecuador. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 21 of November of 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 277; Case Reverón Trujillo V. Venezuela, supra note 39, para. 201, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 301. 287 Cf. Case Garrido and Baigorria V. Argentina. Reparations and Costs, supra note 284, para. 82; Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 381, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 300.