governmental organizations that used their own resources to cover the basic costs of processing the case in both forums.” 145. The Court reiterates that, based on its case law, costs and expenses form part of the concept of reparation, because the efforts made by the victims to obtain justice, both at national and international level, entail disbursements that must be compensated when the State’s international responsibility has been declared in a condemnatory judgment. Regarding the reimbursement of costs and expenses, it is for the Court to prudently assess their scope, which includes expenses incurred before the authorities of the domestic courts and those generated during the proceedings before the Inter-American system, taking into account the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of the international jurisdiction for the protection of human rights. This assessment may be based on the principle of equity, taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided that their quantum is reasonable.169 146. This Court notes that the representatives have not requested a specific monetary sum for reimbursement of expenses and costs, nor did they provide the necessary supporting documentation for the totality of the expenses incurred. Consequently, the Court decides, on deeming it reasonable, to establish, in equity, the payment of a total amount of US$5,000 (five thousand dollars of the United States of America) for costs and expenses to CISALP and a total amount of US $5,000.00 (five thousand dollars of the United States of America) for costs and expenses to El Trapito. These amounts shall be delivered directly to the organizations. In the procedure to supervise compliance with this judgment, the Court may order reimbursement by the State to the victims or to their representatives of expenses reasonably and duly documented at each procedural stage.170 H. Reimbursement of expenses to the Legal Assistance Fund 147. In this case, by means of a note dated January 22, 2020, the President of the Court declared admissible the request presented by the alleged victim, through her representatives, to avail herself of the Legal Assistance Fund. The communication resolved that the necessary financial assistance would be granted for the presentation of two statements—one at the hearing and the other by means of an affidavit—and for the participation of a legal representative in the public hearing. 148. On February 12, 2020, the representatives requested the reconsideration of the decision because “it [was] possible […] for them to pay the expenses arising from the statement by affidavit of Ms. Martínez, in the Eastern Republic of Uruguay,” requesting instead that the resources be reallocated to cover the “travel and accommodation of witness Andrés Alberto Fresco.” In response to this request, the Court, following instructions from the Presidency, notified the parties and the Commission that it was impossible to “carry out this reallocation without affecting the Victims 'Legal Assistance Fund," and therefore, "the representatives' request was not granted.” 149. On June 10, 2020, the Report on Application of the Victims' Legal Assistance Fund was sent to the parties in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 of the Court's Rules of Procedure on the operation of that fund. The State reported in writing on June 23, 2020, Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, paras. 79 and 82, and Case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia, supra, para. 164. 169 Cf. Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 331, and Case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia, supra, para. 165. 170 40