jurisdiction.468 Regarding their next of kin of the injured victims, with the exception of six family members of Amalio Neite González,469 none of them received compensation under the contentious administrative jurisdiction. 336. Taking into account that the contentious courts have established reparations in this case based on what the victims claimed and even conciliated, and in keeping with the principle of complementarity, the Court finds that it is not appropriate to order additional monetary reparations, for either pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage in favor of the next of kin of the victims who died, or of those injured during the events, who have already received reparation under the domestic system of justice. 337. Nevertheless, the Court must determine the situation of the injured victims (supra para. 335), as well as of five family members of two deceased victims,470 and the next of kin of the injured victims, who did not have recourse to the domestic contentious-administrative jurisdiction. In this regard, the Court finds that the State must grant and execute, within one year and using a prompt domestic mechanism, the pertinent compensation and indemnities for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage, if appropriate, which must be established based on the objective, reasonable and effective criteria of the Colombian contentious-administrative jurisdiction. The next of kin of victims who consider that they are beneficiaries of the provisions of this paragraph should approach the corresponding State authorities within three months at the latest of notification of this Judgment. 338. The preceding decision (supra para. 337) does not affect the next of kin of victims who were not petitioners, who have not been represented in the proceedings before the Commission and the Court, and who have not been included as victims or injured parties in this Judgment, insofar as it does not preclude any actions that they might file at the domestic level. E. Costs and expenses 339. As the Court has indicated on previous occasions, costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparation established in Article 63(1) of the American Convention.471 340. In their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives asked the Court to order the State to reimburse the expenses in which they had incurred.472 Then, in their final arguments brief, the representatives asked that the Court order the payment of the costs and expenses arising from attending the public hearing held at the seat of the Court on June 27 and 28, 2012.473 341. The State indicated in relation to the “payment of the costs and expenses in the proceedings” that these “are excessive,” because approximately US$36,000 was requested and the 468 The State only referred to the sisters Maribel Daza Rojas and Rusmira Daza Rojas, as injured victims who had not had recourse to the contentious administrative jurisdiction. 469 They are Carmen Edilia González Ravelo, who received compensation for the injuries to her son Amalio Neite González, as well as her siblings Neftalí, Neila, Salomón, Elizabeth and Marcos Neite González. 470 Nerys Duarte Cárdenas (permanent companion of Carmen Antonio Díaz), Andersson Duarte Cárdenas (son of Carmen Antonio Díaz), Davinson Duarte Cárdenas (son of Carmen Antonio Díaz), Lucero Talero Sánchez (permanent companion of Levis Orlando Martínez Carreña) and María Elena Carreño (sister of Levis Orlando Martínez Carreña). 471 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 79, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 385. 472 In particular they indicated the expenses incurred by the “Joel Sierra” Human Rights Foundation (US$4,000), the Asociación para la Promoción Social Alternativa Minga (US$12,000), the Humanidad Vigente Corporación Jurídica (US$10,000) and the “José Alvear Restrepo” Lawyers’ Group (US$9,000). In addition, it was mentioned that the representatives David Stahl, Lisa Meyer and Douglass Cassel acted at the request of the Colombian organizations pro-bono, and therefore did not ask for costs and expenses. 473 In this regard, the representatives indicated that the delegation of the representatives of the victims consisted of nine persons, lawyers, witnesses and an expert witness, and the expenses per person were approximately US$1,400. ‐ 95 ‐