79 cents) in favor of CEJIL, for the expenses incurred in the participation in the public hearing. 299. The State claimed that it “paid Q820,754.72 [(eight hundred twenty thousand, seven hundred fifty-four quetzals with seventy-two cents)] for costs and expenses […] for the processing before the Commission.” Also, in relation to the expenses incurred by the representatives during the public hearing, the State objected some of them, considering “that they do not correspond to the proceeding before the Court.” 285 300. As the Court has indicated, the costs and expenses are part of the reparation (supra para. 296), if and when the activity shown by the victims in order to obtain justice, both domestically and internationally, implies disbursements that must be compensated when the State’s international responsibility is declared through a condemnatory judgment. Regarding the reimbursement, it is the Court’s role to carefully assess its scope, which comprises the expenses generated before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, as well as those generated during the proceeding before this Court, considering the circumstances of the concrete case and the nature of the international jurisdiction of the protection of human rights. This assessment can be made based on the principle of equity and considering the expenses indicated by the parties, as long as their quantum is reasonable.286 301. In this regard, the Court, when assessing all of the vouchers submitted by the representatives, will consider the State’s objections regarding certain expenses (supra para. 299). The Court also repeats that “the submission of evidentiary documents is not sufficient, the parties are required to argue the relationship of the evidence with the fact considered represented, and which, when related to claimed economic disbursements, the areas and justifications of the expenses should be established with clarity.” 287 302. In the instant case, at the time of submitting their brief of pleadings and motions, the representatives did not submit the vouchers of the costs and expenses which FAMDEGUA had allegedly incurred at that time. The representatives only indicated that they did not keep receipts of these expenses, and asked the Court to establish them on the grounds of equity. In this regard, the Court indicated that “the victims’ or their representatives’ claims in terms of the costs and expenses, and the receipts that support them, must be presented to the Court at the first procedural time granted to them, that is, in the brief of pleadings and motions, which does not preclude these claims from being updated at a later time, in conformity with the new costs and expenses incurred in the proceeding before this Court.”288 The Court notes that FAMDEGUA later submitted various receipts relating to the expenses incurred in 285 Namely: i) costs to mobilize the people who participated in the march to the Supreme Court of Justice, organized by FAMDEGUA; ii) purchase of a cell phone and charges to that phone in La Paz, Bolivia, acquired by CEJIL; iii) Medical Insurance of attorney Carlos Pelayo Moller; iv) excess weight at the airline; v) transfers from the airport of Bolivia to the hotel, considering that “it is not equal to the real cost [of the] taxi service in that country; vi) expert opinon of April 7, 2009 by Nieves Gómez, given that “it was proposed by the representatives” and “considering that the cost is too high”, and vii) unexpected expenses “not detailed [by] the representatives.” The State added that “the plane tickets paid for the transfer of the representatives, witnesses, and expert witnesses in the case were present[ed] twice […].” 286 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs, supra note 284, para. 82; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 145, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 28, para. 119. 287 Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 277, and Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra note 29, para. 201. 288 Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez v. Ecuador, supra note 287, para. 275; Case of Escher et al. v. Brasil, supra note 33, para. 259, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 28, para. 228.