- 130 - spouse or permanent companion of the said victims, identified in paragraph 324 of this judgment, and US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) in favor of each brother, sister, nephew and niece of these victims identified in paragraph 324 of this judgment. G. Costs and expenses 377. The representatives, in this case CEJIL, asked the Court to order the State to pay US$21,067.78 for the concept of costs and expenses, corresponding to travel, translations, salaries and wages related to the representation of the victims. CEJIL indicated that “in the months following the presentation of the brief with motions, pleadings and evidence, CEJIL incurred numerous expenses related to the production of evidence and the public hearing in this case” and therefore asked that the Court order the State to pay an additional US$8,749.19. In total, CEJIL requested payment of US$29,816.97 for costs and expenses. Meanwhile, the Center Prodh indicated that it “did not wish to request reimbursement of costs and expenses.” 378. The Court reiterates that, according to its case law,469 costs and expenses form part of the concept of reparation, because the actions taken by the victims in order to obtain justice, at both the national and the international level, entail disbursements that must be compensated when the international responsibility of the State has been declared in a judgment. Regarding the reimbursement of costs and expenses, the Court must make a prudent assessment of their scope, which includes the expenses incurred before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, as well as those incurred 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 made based on the equity principle, taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided their quantum is reasonable.470 379. This Court has indicated that “the claims of the victims or their representatives for costs and expenses, and the evidence supporting them, should be submitted to the Court at the first procedural moment granted them, that is, in the motions and pleadings brief; without prejudice to these claims being updated subsequently, on the basis of the new costs and expenses incurred owing to the proceedings before this Court.”471 In addition, the Court reiterates that it is not sufficient merely to forward probative documents; rather the parties are required to submit arguments relating the evidence to the fact that it is considered to represent and, in the case of alleged financial disbursements, the items and their justification must be clearly established.472 380. The Court observes that CEJIL provided expense vouchers in relation to their representation in this case, demonstrating that they had incurred expenses with regard to this case that amounted to approximately US$30,000.00 (thirty thousand United States dollars), owing to Cf. 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. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 381. 469 Cf. 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. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 381. 470 Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 79, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2018. Series C No. 356, para. 194. 471 Cf. 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 López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 382. 472