67 reimbursement of “US $ 4,800.00 (four thousand eight hundred United States dollars). Furthermore, for “hotel accommodation and living expenses” in San José, Costa Rica, he requested the amount of US $2,800.00 (two thousand eight hundred United States dollars). Finally, for “fees,” the representative requested US $ 30,000.00 (thirty thousand United States dollars). 256. The State considered that, regarding the costs and expenses alleged by the representative, “the relation between the compensatory amount for the victims and their next of kin and the amount claimed by the representative in terms of percentage is disproportionate.” 257. As stated by the Court in prior cases, costs and expenses are comprised within the concept of reparation as set forth in Article 63(1) of the American Convention, since the steps undertaken by the victims in order to get justice, both at the domestic and international levels, implies incurring expenses that must be compensated when the international responsibility of the State is determined by means of a condemnatory judgment. As regards the reimbursement of such costs and expenses, the Court must prudently determine its scope, which comprises the expenses incurred to start proceedings in the domestic jurisdiction as well as those arising from the proceedings started before the Inter-American system, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case in point and the nature of the international jurisdiction for the protection of human rights. This assessment is to be made based on the principle of equity and taking into consideration the expenses stated by the parties, provided that the quantum thereof is reasonable.262 258. In the instant case, at the time the brief of request and arguments was submitted (supra para. 4), the representative did not submit the receipts for the costs and expenses allegedly incurred by Mr. Apitz, Mr. Rocha, and Ms. Ruggeri, nor did he put forward clear arguments to support such claim. In this regard, the Court considers that the claims made by the victims or their representative with regard to costs and expenses and the documentary evidence supporting them, must be filed before the Court at the start of each procedural stage, at the first time granted for them to do so in writing,263 that is, in the brief containing pleadings and motions, without prejudice to such evidence being updated at a subsequent stage, as new costs and expenses are incurred in connection with the proceedings started before this Court. 259. Due to the insufficiency of the evidence referred to in the foregoing paragraph, the Court requested the representative by means of two communications of the Secretariat264 to submit evidentiary documents showing the costs and expenses incurred. However, no reply was received. Regarding this issue, the Court wishes to point out that it is a power and not an obligation of the Court to request the parties to submit evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case. As it was noted in the foregoing paragraph, the duty to submit the pertinent evidence in a timely manner in the instant case is incumbent upon the representative. 262 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 152, para. 212; Case of Gómez Palomino, supra note 247, para. 150; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 247, para. 286; and Case of Blanco Romero, supra note 247, para. 114. 263 Cf. Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C No. 108, para. 22, and Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 41. 264 Notes of the Secretariat of the Court of February 23 and March 7, 2007 (File on the Merits, Book I, pp. 264 and 289).