103 379. In response to a request from the President of the Court, which seeks that the representatives indicate if they had reached any type of agreement with the next of kin of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco with regard to the costs and expenses of the litigation, the representatives stated that on February 6, 2009, AFADEM and the CMDPDH had signed an agreement that specifies in its clauses: TEN.- In what refers to any pecuniary reparation for the material and/or moral damage obtained in reason of the litigation of the cases or their resolution by any other process will be handed over in their totality to the family of the specific case in question, except when the expenses and costs set correspond exclusively to the AFADEM and the CMDPDH in a proportional manner in order to recover the amounts paid throughout the litigations and actions carried out with regard to these. TEN a).- The CMDPDH in no case and for no reason whatsoever will receive payment from any of the victims or the AFADEM for the services rendered and will only receive what is established by the competent authority strictly in reference to payment of the expenses and costs derived from the tasks 334 performed in the cases. 380. The State, on its part, in the respondent’s plea, “consider[ed] it fair to propose the amount [of] US$ 18,000.00 [eighteen thousand dollars of the United States of America, or its equivalent in pesos,] to the petitioners,” taking into consideration that from the information established in the report itself of the Inter-American Commission it can be concluded that the next of kin of Mr. Radilla carried out, as of 1990, activities “before the non-jurisdictional body for the protection of human rights” in order to achieve justice. 381. In what refers to the reimbursement of the costs and expenses, it corresponds to the Tribunal to prudently assess their scope, which includes the expenses generated before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, as well as those generated throughout the course of the proceedings before the Inter-American System, taking into account the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of the international human rights protection jurisdiction. This assessment can be achieved based on the principle of equality and taking into account the expenses stated by the parties, as long as their quantum is reasonable.335 382. The Court observes that the representatives requested the reimbursement of several expenses incurred in for the payment of rent of the commercial establishments where both organizations, AFADEM and CMDPDH, operated; in fact, some of the expenses claimed by the organization AFADEM included rent from the year 1978 up to 2008. In this sense, it shall be pointed out that this Court’s jurisdiction arises as of 1998, reason for which the reparations requested in matters of costs and expenses shall be in accordance with this temporary competence. Similarly, the Court observes that the representatives requested the reimbursement of a set of trips to the “UN” in the amount of $325,000.00 Mexican pesos (three hundred and twenty-five thousand pesos). Additionally, they requested the reimbursement of activities of the international day of the disappeared detainee, the international week of the disappeared-detainee, and the month of the disappeared-detainee in Mexico and the Caribbean for a total of $83,700 Mexican pesos (eighty three thousand seven hundred pesos). The Court considers that all these expenses do not have a direct and exclusive relationship with the litigation of the present case before the Inter-American 334 Cf. Agreement of the framework for the institutional collaboration between the Association of Relatives of Disappeared Detainees and Victims of Violations of Human Rights (AFADEM) and the Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights (CMDPDH) of February 6, 2009 (dossier of merits, volume IX, folios 3004 through 3006). 335 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina, supra note 283, para. 82; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 40, para. 243, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 43, para. 119.