100 179. As indicated with regard to the nature of the penal definitions of torture and forced disappearance of persons contained in the Paraguayan Penal Code in force (supra paras. 91 to 93) and bearing in mind the State’s obligations arising from the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, and Article 2 of the American Convention, the Court deems it pertinent to order the State, as a guarantee of nonrepetition of the facts of the case, to adapt, within a reasonable time, the definition of the offenses of “forced disappearance” and torture contained in articles 236 and 309 of the current Penal Code to the applicable provisions of international human rights law. E) COSTS AND EXPENSES 180. As the Court has indicated previously, costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparations embodied in Article 63(1) of the American Convention, because the activity deployed by the next of kin of the victims or their representatives in order to obtain justice at both the national and the international level entails expenditure that must be compensated when the State’s international responsibility is declared in a judgment against it. Regarding their reimbursement, the Court must prudently assess their scope, which includes the expenses arising before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, and those generated during the proceedings before the inter-American system, bearing in mind the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of the international jurisdiction for the protection of human rights. This assessment may be based on the principle of equity and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided the quantum is reasonable.112 181. The Court takes into account that some of the next of kin of Agustín Goiburú Giménez, Carlos José Mancuello Bareiro, and Rodolfo and Benjamín Ramírez Villalba acted through representatives, at both the domestic level and before the Commission and the Court. In the instant case, it has been established that some of the next of kin have testified in the criminal proceedings and have become complainants in these proceedings. 182. It is also necessary to bear in mind that the representatives of the victims’ next of kin did not submit their requests, arguments and evidence autonomously, even though they had the opportunity to do so. Consequently, their participation in the proceedings before the Court was limited to some assistance provided to the Commission when taking the sworn statements that had been requested and the submission of final written arguments. Also, although the representatives requested the reimbursement of costs and expenses, they did not submit any documentation to the Court to authenticate these. 183. Based on the above, the Court considers it equitable to order the State to reimburse the amount of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) or the equivalent in Paraguayan currency, to Elva Elisa Benítez de Goiburú, Ana Arminda Bareiro de Mancuello and Julio Darío Ramírez Villalba, who shall deliver the amount of US$8,000.00 (eight thousand United States dollars) or the equivalent in Paraguayan currency, to the Comité de Iglesias para Ayudas de Emergencias (CIPAE) 112 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 3, para. 152; Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 8, para. 252, and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 1, para. 414.