66 The State’s arguments 211. The State expressed its agreement to recognizing payment “to the person(s) who have effectively provided legal assistance, directed and sponsored this case,” in an amount equal to a tenth of the total compensation received in this judgment on reparations. The considerations of the Court 212. It should be understood that costs and expenses are included within the concept of reparation established in Article 63(1) of the American Convention, because the measures taken by the victim or victims, their successors or their representatives to have access to international justice imply disbursements and commitments of a financial nature that must be compensated when the judgment of condemnation is delivered. This Court therefore considers that the costs referred to in Article 55(1) of the Rules of Procedure also include the various necessary and reasonable expenses that the victim or victims incur to have access to the interAmerican system for the protection of human rights. The fees of those who provide legal assistance are included among the expenses. Consequently, the Court must assess prudently the scope of the costs and expenses, bearing in mind the particular circumstances of the case, the nature of the international jurisdiction for the protection of human rights and the characteristics of the respective proceedings, which are unique and differ from those of other national or international proceedings50. 213. As in previous cases, the quantum for this item may be established on the basis of the principle of fairness51, even in the absence of evidence concerning the precise amount of the expenses that the parties have incurred52, provided that the amounts respond to the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality. 214. As for the State’s position that the costs should be determined in proportion to the amount of the compensation obtained by the victims or their next of kin, the Court considers that this procedure is inadequate, since there are other elements that allow the quality and pertinence of the measures taken to be assessed, such as the contribution of evidence to support the facts set forth by the parties, the legal advice provided to those they represent, the diligence in executing the various procedural measures before the Court and the degree of knowledge of international jurisprudence53. 50 Cf. Suárez Rosero case, Reparations, supra note 19, para. 97; Loayza Tamayo case, Reparations, supra note 2, paras. 176 and 177; and Garrido and Baigorria case, Reparations, supra note 22, paras. 79, 80 and 81. 51 Cf. “The Last Temptation of Christ” case (Olmedo Bustos et al.), supra note 2, para. 100; Baena Ricardo et al. case, supra note 2, para. 208; The Constitutional Court case, supra note 2, para. 125; Suárez Rosero case, Reparations, supra note 19, paras. 92 and 97; Castillo Páez case, Reparations, supra note 2, para. 112; and Garrido and Baigorria case, Reparations, supra note 22, para. 82. 52 Cf. Suárez Rosero case, Reparations, supra note 19, paras. 92 and 99. 53 Cf. Garrido and Baigorria case, Reparations, supra note 22, para. 83.