plus the costs and expenses entailed by […] photocopies, notarizations, notifications, mailing documents and others.” 233. They asked the Court to “appraise all the professional work, the costs and expenses of 16 years of litigation before the Inter-American Commission […], the payment of the fees of the lawyers of the two victims, […] and also the expenditure […] in photocopies, notarizations, and travel expenses for the hearings before the Commission […] in Washington [and] in Buenos Aires.” They indicated that “it is very difficult to present all the vouchers; therefore, “the Court may make a just analysis and assessment” of the years of litigation at the national and international level.” Lastly, they asked that, “since they did not have […] the [respective] vouchers,” “the reimbursement of the expenses incurred during the proceedings before the Court should be considered, based on equity, at U$50,000.00 [United States] dollars for both victims.” 234. The State indicated that the representatives sought to validate the payments made to lawyers for professional fees by “documents produced unilaterally, instead of legal invoices.” Also, they had requested the reimbursement of disbursements for photocopies and notifications without indicating any amount or attaching vouchers. Similarly, they were claiming costs and expenses for 16 years of litigation before the inter-American system based on different documents, but without including an estimated amount. The State asked that, if the Court decided to establish compensation for this concept, it consider that the claim had no “documentary support and several items lack a direct causal nexus with the disputed facts,” so that the claim should not be admitted. 235. The Court has indicated that costs and expenses form part of the concept of reparation because the activity deployed by the victims in order to obtain justice at both the national and the international level entails disbursements that should be compensated when the international responsibility of the State has been declared in a judgment. Regarding the reimbursement of costs and expenses, it is for the Court to make a prudent assessment of their scope, which includes the expenses incurred before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction and 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 principle of equity and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided the quantum is reasonable.201 236. This Court has also indicated that it is not sufficient merely to forward probative documents; rather the parties are required to include 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.202 237. The representatives requested compensation for the expenses that the victims had incurred as a result of the impeachment proceedings filed against them, the actions of unconstitutionality that they filed, and the criminal proceedings instituted based on the complaint filed by several members of the Legislature that culminated in the decision issued by the Fourth Criminal Judge of Guarantees dismissing that complaint (supra para. 57). In addition, they asked for compensation for the expenses incurred during the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission and Court. 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 Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 192. 202 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra, para. 277, and Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 270. 201 54