257. With respect to the expenses incurred in the domestic investigation and judicial proceedings, the representatives argued that, “[f]rom the time of the death of Carlos Luna López […] the family members took steps to obtain justice […]. [T]he family members supported the investigative process by presenting witnesses, pressing for arrest warrants, arranging meetings with officials of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Supreme Court of Justice, marches to demand justice and pressure the authorities, etc. […] Given that these expenses were incurred over a period of more than fourteen years, the family has not kept receipts for them. These [expenses] include professional fees, transportation, telephone calls, accommodation, copies and travel expenses, for which they ask[ed] the Court to establish in equity [the amount of] US$ 10,000 (ten thousand dollars of the United States of America) to be paid to Mr. César Luna Valle.” They added that, with respect to the expenses incurred during the proceeding before the Commission and the Inter-American Court, the Analysis, Investigation and Communication Team (ERIC) expressed its desire to waive the payment for costs and expenses. For its part, the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) “ask[ed] the Court to set the amount of US$ 18,620.16 (eighteen thousand six hundred and twenty dollars of the United States of America and sixteen cents) [for] expenses.”344 258. The Court reiterates that, according to its case law,345 costs and expenses form part of the reparations, given that the efforts made by the victims to obtain justice, at both the national and international level, imply expenses that must be compensated when the State’s international responsibility is declared in a Judgment. 259. Similarly, the Court reiterates that it is not sufficient to provide evidentiary documents; both parties are required to present arguments that link the evidence with the facts represented, since these imply alleged economic expenses, the items of expenditure and their justification must be clearly established.346 260. In this case, the proof submitted by the representatives and the corresponding arguments do not fully justify the amounts requested. Taking this into account, the Court sets in equity the amount of US$ 5,000 (five thousand dollars of the United States of America) to be paid to Cesar Luna Valle for the expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings, and US$ 15,000 (fifteen thousand dollars of the United States of America) for the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) for expenses related to processing the case before the Inter-American System of Human Rights. These amounts shall also be paid to the family members and the representatives, respectively, within a period of one year from notification of this Judgment. In the phase of monitoring compliance with the Judgment, the Court may request the State to reimburse the victims or their representatives for any subsequent expenses that are reasonable and duly verified.347 344 The representatives stated that they made five trips to Honduras to gather documentation for the case, with expenses equivalent to US$ 2,300.89 (two thousand, three hundred dollars of the United States of America and eighty-seven cents); US$ 171.42 (one hundred and seventy-one dollars of the United States of America and forty-two cents) for copies and administrative expenses; US$ 16,147.95 (sixteen thousand, one hundred and fortyseven dollars of the United States of America and ninety-five cents) for an attorney’s fees: 5% of a monthly salary for nine years, 40% of the salary for the month of February and 80% of the salary during the months of March and April through April 21, 2012 (Merits file, pages 223 to 224). 345 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 Suárez Peralta, supra, para. 217. 346 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C, No. 189, para. 277 and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo, supra, para. 343. 347 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C, No. 217, para. 291 and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Military Journal), supra, para. 383. 73