70 quantify the itemized [expenditures].” This, they noted, is not grounds to reject fair reimbursement for such expenditures, as the Court can indemnify this amount in equity. 294. They asked, therefore, for reimbursement of travel expenditures for the Defenders’ trips to the city of Buenos Aires to interview the victims, submit the briefs of pleadings, motions and evidence, and cover travel, lodging and perdiem expenses necessary to ensure that the applicants would be able to attend the hearing. 295. The Court reiterates that, in keeping with its case law, 229 legal fees and court costs are part of the body of reparations enshrined in article 63(1) of the American Convention given that the efforts made by the victims to obtain justice, both at the domestic and the international levels, entail expenses that must be compensated when the State’s international responsibility is declared in a Judgment. 296. Regarding the reimbursement of expenses, the Court must prudently assess their scope, including the costs related to the proceedings before the domestic courts, and those incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Court, bearing in mind the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of the international jurisdiction for the protection of human rights. This assessment may be based on the principle of fairness, taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, as long as their quantum is reasonable.230 297. The Court has held, in this regard, that “the claims of the victims or their representatives in relation to costs and expenses, and the evidence supporting them, must be presented to the Court at the first procedural opportunity granted them, namely, in the brief containing pleadings and motions, without prejudice to those claims being updated subsequently, to include new costs and expenses incurred as a result of the proceedings before this Court.” 231 The Court also recalls that it is not enough to merely remit probative documents; rather the parties must develop the reasoning linking the evidence to the fact under consideration and, in the case of alleged financial outlays, the items of expenditure and their justification must be described clearly.232 298. The Court notes in the instant case that Representatives De Vita and Cueto and Vega and Sommer did not submit vouchers for the expenditures they had incurred and did not itemize their outlays for the national and international litigation, nor did they submit additional evidence to this end. In view of the fact that the litigation lasted several years, both in the country and internationally, this Court nonetheless finds it reasonable to order USD 10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) for representatives Vega and Sommer and USD 10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) for representatives De Vita and Cueto for court costs and legal fees. The Court also takes note that in their pleadings and motions brief, the Inter-American Defenders expressly requested access to the Victims Legal Assistance Fund for the expenditures incurred in the defense of this case. Based on the same considerations, the Court deems fitting to order the State to reimburse USD 630.00 (six hundred thirty United States dollars) to the Inter-American Defenders Gustavo Luis Vitale and 229 Cfr. Case of Garrido y Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, par. 79, and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, par. 276. 230 Cfr. Case of Garrido y Baigorria v. Argentina, par. 82 and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, par. 277. 231 Cfr. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, par. 275, and Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, par. 328. 232 Cfr. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, par. 277, and Case of expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, par. 496.