international level entails disbursements that must be compensated when the international responsibility of the State has been declared in a judgment convicting it. 450. With regard to their reimbursement, it is for the Court to make a prudent assessment of their scope, which may include the expenses arising before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, as well as those generated during the proceedings before the Court, 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 principle of equity and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided that the quantum is reasonable.436 451. In this regard, the Court has indicated that “the claims of the victims or their representatives for costs and expenses, and the evidence that supports such claims must be presented to the Court at the first procedural opportunity granted them; that is, in the motions and arguments brief, without prejudice to those claims being updated subsequently based on the new costs and expenses incurred owing to the proceedings before this Court.”437 In addition, the Court reiterates that it is not sufficient merely to forward probative documents, but rather the parties must submit arguments that relate 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.438 452. In the instant case, the Court takes into account that the common interveners incurred expenses during the processing of the case before the Inter-American Commission and before the Court. In this regard, it has verified that CEJIL presented vouchers for expenses for approximately US$26,425.00 (twenty-six thousand four hundred and twenty-five United States dollars) corresponding to travel, accommodation and transport. Meanwhile, the FIDH presented expense vouchers for approximately US$25,820.00 (twenty-five thousand eight hundred and twenty United States dollars) corresponding to travel, accommodation and transport. Consequently, the Court finds it appropriate to establish for reimbursement of costs and expenses in favor of the FIDH the sum requested of US$32,000.00 (thirty-two thousand United States dollars) or the equivalent in local currency, and in favor of CEJIL the amount requested of US$28,700.00 (twenty-eight thousand seven hundred United States dollars) or the equivalent in local currency. The State must pay these amounts within one year. 453. In addition, the Court considers that Ylenia Hartog, representative of the victims Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, incurred expenses in the proceedings before the Court, and therefore decides to establish in her favor, in equity, for costs and expenses the sum of US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars). With regard to the FIDH request to recognize a sum for “honoraria” to Jaime Madariaga and Myriam Reyes for having “represented the victims from the start of the proceedings” (supra para. 448), the Court has verified that they have intervened in the processing of the proceedings at both the domestic and the international level and, therefore, finds it pertinent to establish, in equity, the sum of US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) or the equivalent in local currency, for each of them, for costs and expenses. The State must pay these amounts within one year. 454. The Court considers that, during the proceeding on monitoring compliance with this Judgment, it may establish that the State must reimburse the victims or their representatives any reasonable expenses they incur during that procedural stage. 436 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs, para. 82 and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru, para. 293. 437 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, para. 275, and Case of J. v. Peru, para.421. 438 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, para. 277, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 163. 147