144 593. The State indicated that, “at the domestic level, the expenses and costs that the victims’ next of kin could have incurred were covered by the State.” It also indicated that it was unaware of the costs and expenses that may have been incurred at the international level. Despite this, the State considered that, if each victim’s mother had attended meetings at the Commission’s seat three times, each one should receive approximately $81,500.00 (eighty-one thousand five hundred Mexican pesos) to cover transport and accommodation. Lastly, the State added that it could not recognize the organizations that represent the victims as victims in the proceedings and therefore, it was not possible to obtain monetary sums in their favor, because only the victims can receive reimbursement of expenses in reparation, and that receiving the sum of US$284,498.00 (two hundred and eighty-four thousand four hundred and ninety-eight United States dollars) “would be absurd and contrary to equity, because it was more than the amount of compensation requested for each of the three victims in this case.” 594. The Tribunal clarifies that, contrary to measures of compensation, costs and expenses are not granted to those who have been declared victims, because costs are not a form of compensation. Depending on the circumstances of the case, they must be granted to the person or organization that represented the victim. The reimbursement is justified because those who have not committed the violation should not be caused financial prejudice. The expense corresponds to the State, if its international responsibility in the matter has been proven. 595. The victims’ representatives did not provide any probative element to authenticate their alleged expenses. In this regard, the Tribunal has indicated that “the claims of the victims or their representatives for costs and expenses, and the evidence to support them, must be submitted to the Court at the first procedural opportunity granted to them, namely, in the pleadings and motions brief; nevertheless these claims can be updated subsequently, in keeping with the new costs and expenses incurred owing to the proceedings before this Tribunal.”551 596. The Court observes that, for expenses and costs, the State offered to pay the sum of $244,500.00 (two hundred and forty-four thousand five hundred Mexican pesos) for the meetings of the mothers of Mss. Herrera, Ramos and González, held before the Inter-American Commission. The Tribunal also observes that the representatives did not comment on the State’s affirmation that, in the domestic jurisdiction, the costs had been covered. However, the Court also notes that the victims’ representatives incurred expenses to attend the public hearing of the case held in Santiago, Chile, as well as expenses relating to the exercise of their legal representation, such as for forwarding their briefs and for communication expenses, during the proceedings before this Tribunal. Taking this into account, and given the absence of vouchers for these expenses, it establishes, in equity, that the State shall deliver the sum of US$45,000.00 (forty-five thousand United States dollars) to the mothers of Mss. Herrera, Ramos and González, who shall each deliver the amount they deem adequate to their representatives, for costs and expenses. This amount includes any future expenses that they may incur during monitoring compliance with this judgment and it shall be delivered within one year of notification of this judgment. 551 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador, supra note 265, para. 275; Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 46, para. 259, and Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panamá, supra note 9, para. 215.