a) US$3,500.00 (three thousand five hundred dollars) for the participation of one of the representatives at the public hearing, with some supporting documentation; b) US$ 49,358.10 (forty-nine thousand three hundred and fifty-eight dollars and ten cents), in addition to the sum already requested, for correspondence, printing, copying, per diems, internet services, stationery, national and international telephone calls, meetings with experts, working meetings with the institutional interdisciplinary team assigned to the case, and with the victims. They indicated that this amount was calculated based on the number of days and hours worked during 11 months, using the same calculation method as in the pleadings and motions brief, and c) Lastly, for future expenses that Mr. Fornerón and the CESPPEDH would incur during the remainder of the processing of the case before the Court, which would include those required for the dissemination, publication and satisfactory advancement of compliance with the Judgment, they requested that the Court permit them to submit these opportunely. 201. The State underscored “the scandalous figure that the representatives […] were seeking for costs and expenses” and that “the figure to which they aspire for the domestic and international proceedings [more than five hundred thousand dollars] exceeds the total pecuniary reparation that [the] Court has established for violation of the right to life, to personal integrity, to liberty and to judicial protection, in many cases.” Obviously, all this has been requested without any effort at justification or authentication with vouchers, invoices, receipts or other supporting documentation. The State stressed that “the figure that [the] representatives are claiming is particularly obscene,” and reiterated that the latter had not provided any reliable evidence to justify the excessive pecuniary reparations claimed. The State therefore asked that the Court decide the costs and expenses based on the principle of equity, in accordance with international standards, taking into account its observations. 202. The Court has indicated that “the claims of the victims or their representatives concerning costs and expenses, and the evidence to support them, must be submitted to the Court at the first procedural opportunity granted them, namely in the pleadings and motions brief, even though these claims may be updated subsequently, in line with the new costs and expenses that may have been incurred as a result of the proceedings before this Court.” 127 Regarding reimbursement of costs and expenses, the Court must prudently assess their scope, which includes the expenses incurred before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, as well as those arising from the proceedings before the interAmerican 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 can be made based on the principle of equity and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided the quantum is reasonable.128 203. The Court notes that the amounts requested by the representatives for costs and expenses are not in keeping with the said criterion of reasonableness and, consequently, will not be considered. In addition, evidently, the representatives did not authenticate the 127 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 275, and Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic, supra note 10, para. 326. 128 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina, supra note 97, para. 82, and Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic, supra note 10, para. 325. 53