302. The representatives requested that the victims be granted an additional allowance for attorney fees, both at the national and international levels. The amount requested in their brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence amounted to $80,200 USD (eighty thousand, two hundred dollars of the United States of America). In the final written arguments a number of charges were included for which the representatives requested, in total, a sum larger than that amount304. 303. For its part, the State did not present any comments on the representatives’ claims for costs and expenses. 304. The Court has indicated that the claims of victims or their representatives for costs and expenses, and the evidence supporting these, must be submitted to the Court at the first procedural opportunity, that is, in the brief of motions and pleadings, without prejudice to the fact that such claims may later be updated, according to new costs and expenses that As to the reimbursement of costs and may be incurred during the proceedings305. expenses, the Court must prudently assess their scope, which includes expenses incurred before domestic authorities as well as those that stemming from the proceedings before the Inter-American system, taking into account the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of international human rights jurisdiction. This assessment may be based on the principle of equity and taking into account the expenses stated by the parties, providing that their quantum is reasonable306. 305. In the case at hand, the Court notes that the case file contains no evidence to support the costs and expenses requested by the representatives. Indeed, the amount requested for fees was not accompanied by any specific evidentiary argument relating to its reasonableness or its scope. Nonetheless, the Court finds that it is possible to assume that during both domestic as well as Inter-American proceedings the victim had financial expenditures. 304 The representatives set the fee per hour of work at US$200 (two hundred dollars of the United States of America). Furthermore, in the brief of final arguments they specified the following amounts for costs and expenses counted in hours of work: i) “[c]osts of filing the Recurso de Queja (Remedy of Complaint) in Chile: US$20,000” (twenty thousand dollars of the United States of America); ii) ”[c]osts of filing the petition before the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights” ("50 hours for preparing the complaint "; "50 hours for preparing the hearing before the ICDH", and "1 hour of work during the hearing before the ICHR ": US $20,200 (twenty thousand dollars of the United States of America); iii) “[c]osts incurred during the proceeding to reach an amicable agreement” ("50 hours of preparation for 5 meetings [...] with State representatives "; "66 hours of travel between Santiago and Washington -3 round trips of 11 hours each way ", and "150 hours of preparation of 10 briefs (15 hours for each brief) filed before the ICHR ": US$53,200 (fifty three thousand, two hundred dollars of the United States of America); iv) “[c]osts incurred in preparing the petition filed before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights” ("80 hours of preparation of the petition and "457 hours of work up until the time of filing the brief of final arguments: US$91,400 (ninety-one thousand four hundred dollars of the United States of America), and v) “[c]osts incurred in the preparation of the hearing and final arguments before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights” ("120 hours of preparation for the hearing"; "100 hours of preparation" of the brief of final arguments," and "travel to Bogotá by 6 lawyers for the hearing, at a cost of US$2,000 per person": US$56.000 (fifty-six thousand dollars of the United States of America). With regard to the proceeding ordered by the Court and held in Santiago de Chile (supra para. ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.), on February 6, 2012 the representatives reported that Ms. Atala “has had to defray the costs of transport Ms. Alicia Espinoza and her young daughters, who were not in Santiago for the purpose of ensuring their appearance at [said] proceeding,” for which reason they requested that the Court “take into consideration the costs incurred by Ms. Atala when determining the costs of this process” (record of Merits, volume XII, pages 7513 and 7514). However, no receipts of expenses were attached in relation to this last request. 305 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra note 160, para. 275 and Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra note 28, para. 127. 306 Cf. Case Garrido and Baigorria, supra note 303, para. 82 and Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra note 28, para. 127. 85