67 from the processing of the instant case in both the domestic sphere and before the interAmerican system.” 257. In their final arguments brief, the representatives asked the Court to order the State to pay the costs of the domestic and international processing of the case amounting to US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) to each victim. 258. The State argued that none of the proceedings in the domestic sphere generated expenditure for the victims because, in the civil sphere, they benefited from free justice and in the criminal sphere, the proceeding did not entail expenses because it was conducted on the State’s initiative, independently of the activity of private individuals. In this regard, it asserted that neither the Commission nor the representatives had submitted vouchers for costs and expenses at the opportune procedural moment. The State rejected the need to make a payment for costs and expenses. 259. The Court has indicated that “the claims of the victims or their representatives for costs and expenses and the evidence to support them must be submitted to the Court at the first procedural moment granted them; that is, in the pleadings and motions brief, without detriment to these claims being updated later, in keeping with new costs and expenses incurred owing to the proceedings before the Court.”207 In their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives of the victims did not provide documentation authenticating such expenditure. Moreover, the Court observes that the representatives of the victims did not refute the State’s arguments that they had benefitted from free justice in the domestic sphere. Furthermore, from the evidence in the case file it is clear that the victims who filed civil actions obtained this benefit.208 Regarding the criminal and administrative proceedings, the Court notes that they were filed by State organs. According to the representatives, they did not incur expenditure for legal assistance in the international sphere either, because they acted pro bono. However, the Court also notes that the victims’ representatives incurred expenses to attend the public hearing of the case held in Mexico City, D.F. Based on the above, the Courts decides, in equity, that the State must deliver the sum of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) to the victims, for costs and expenses. This sum includes any future expenses that the victims may incur during the monitoring of compliance with this judgment and should be delivered and distributed in equal parts within one year of the notification of this judgment. The victims shall deliver, as applicable, the amount they consider appropriate to their representatives in the domestic sphere and in the proceedings before the inter-American system. e) Means of complying with the payments ordered 260. The payment of the compensation for non-pecuniary damage and the reimbursement of costs and expenses established in this judgment shall be made directly to the victims, within one year of notification of this judgment, taking into consideration the provisions of paragraphs 235 and 259 hereof. Should any of the victims have died before the payment of the respective amounts, these shall be delivered to their successors, in accordance with the applicable domestic law. 207 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra note 185, para. 275; Case of Ticona Estrada, supra note 170, para. 180, and Case of Tristán Donoso, supra note 9, para. 215. 208 Cf. Procedural motion relating to the civil action for reparation of damage filed by Arlei José Escher, supra note 114, folio 2127 and judgment of the 4ª Vara da Fazenda Pública of Curitiba of August 9, 2007, supra note 114, folio 1933.