- 85 - proved that Iván Cepeda Castro and Claudia Girón had to leave the country as a result of the threats they received owing to their efforts to seek clarification and justice. 253. Consequently, the Court finds it appropriate to award compensation, based on the equity principle, for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by these next of kin, in addition to that established in the administrative proceedings and, therefore, orders the State to pay the following amounts: US$70,000.00 (seventy thousand United States dollars) to Iván Cepeda Castro; US$40,000.00 (forty thousand United State dollars) to María Cepeda Castro; US$35,000.00 (thirty five thousand United State dollars) to Claudia Girón Ortíz, and US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United State dollars) to María Estella Cepeda Vargas. D.3 Costs and expenses 254. As the Court has indicated on previous occasions, costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparations embodied in Article 63(1) of the American Convention.337 255. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to pay the duly authenticated reasonable and necessary costs and expenses incurred and to be incurred in processing this case in the domestic sphere and before inter-American system. 256. In their pleadings, motions and evidence brief, the representatives asked the Court to establish the sum of US$35,125.98 for costs and expenses in favor of the Colectivo de Abogados “Jose Alvear Restrepo,” because it had incurred expenses in relation to the domestic criminal, administrative, disciplinary and constitutional proceedings, as representatives of the victims and next of kin, as well as for the expenses incurred as co-petitioners before the Commission in the processing of this case at the international level. In addition, they considered that the expenses for processing the case before the Court could amount to US$6,000. Furthermore, they asked the Court to recognize, in equity, the costs and expenses incurred by the Manuel Cepeda Vargas Foundation, owing to its actions in the domestic sphere and also in the international sphere, since it acted as a co-petitioner before the Commission and took part in the processing of the case before this Court. 257. The representatives also indicated that CEJIL had incorporated the international litigation of the case as a co-petitioner in January 2009, when the case was already before the Court, so that it had not requested costs and expenses for this organization. 258. As the Court has indicated previously, costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparations, when the actions taken by the victims in order to obtain justice at both the domestic and the international levels involve expenditure that should be compensated when the State’s international responsibility is declared in a judgment that returns a guilty verdict. Regarding reimbursement, the Court must prudently assess their scope, which includes the expenses incurred before the authorities of the domestic system of justice, as well as those arising from the proceedings before this Court, taking into account the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of the 337 Cf. Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C. No. 39, para. 79; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 57, para. 296, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 24, para. 376.