must validate the delivery of the amounts established under the said program. I. Costs and expenses 178. The representatives indicated that FAMDEGUA had acted as complainant from the start of the domestic judicial proceedings incurring not only procedural expenses, but also expenses for transportation and accommodation for the families of the alleged victims who live in distant places. In this regard, and because they indicated that they had not kept the vouchers for all these expenses, they asked the Court to establish the respective amount, in equity, taking into account that the friendly settlement – under which some of the costs and expenses incurred in this process had been paid – was signed more than seven years ago and that, during this time, the judicial proceedings had made no progress, but had suffered serious setbacks. Meanwhile, CEJIL indicated that it had represented the alleged victims in the international proceedings since 1999, incurring expenses related to trips to Guatemala, Petén, and Washington D.C., and also related to legal work on the case. It therefore asked that the Court establish the sum of US$29,429.00 for costs and expenses, and require the State to reimburse this sum directly to CEJIL. Lastly, the representatives asked to be allowed to present vouchers for all those expenses incurred as a result of the hearing before the Court, and which were not covered by the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund. 179. The Commission indicated that, in the context of the friendly settlement procedure, the State had reimbursed FAMDEGUA’s expenses. 180. The State indicated that, in the context of the friendly settlement procedure, it had made a payment to FAMDEGUA and, therefore, the Court should reject this measure of reparation. 181. The Court reiterates that, pursuant to its case law, 244 costs and expenses form part of the concept of reparation because the actions taken by the victims to obtain justice at both the national and the international level entail disbursements that should be compensated when the international responsibility of the State has been declared in a judgment. Regarding the reimbursement of costs and expenses, it is for the Court to prudently assess their scope, which includes the expenses generated before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, and also those incurred in 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 jurisdiction for the protection of human rights. This assessment may be made based on the equity principle and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided their quantum is reasonable.245 182. First, the Court deems it pertinent to clarify that, as indicated by the State and confirmed by the Commission and the representatives, the State has already made certain payments to FAMDEGUA for costs and expenses. The parties have not provided details of these amounts. Nevertheless, the Court notes that the said sums were delivered for procedural actions up until 2007, the year in which the friendly settlement agreement was signed. The Court notes that the international contentious procedure has continued for 14 more years, during which both the victims and their representatives have invested time and effort. The Court finds it reasonable that, during this lapse, they have incurred expenses for litigation, communications, transportation, supplies and other items. Therefore, the Court considers, in equity, that the State should pay, for the concept of costs and expenses, the sum Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 82, and Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 244. 244 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 82, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 317. 245 51