national and the international level entail disbursements that must be compensated when the international responsibility of the State has been declared in a judgment against it. In the case of reimbursement of expenses, it is for the Court to assess their scope prudently and this includes the expenses arising before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, and also those arising 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 that the quantum is reasonable.361 As it has indicated on other occasions, the Court recalls that it is not sufficient to forward probative documents; rather the parties must present arguments that relate the evidence to the fact that it is considered to represent and, in the case of alleged financial disbursements, the items and their justification must be clearly established.362 283. In this case, the victims’ representatives did not provide any evidence that would prove the expenses that were alleged. Nevertheless, the Court finds it reasonable to presume that Mr. Velásquez Durán made disbursements starting in November 2005, the year in which he became a joint complainant in the investigation. The Court also notes that the victims’ representatives incurred expenses to attend the public hearing of the case held in Cartagena, Colombia, as well as in relation to the exercise of their legal representation, such as mailing and communications expenditure during the proceedings before this Court. On this basis, and in view of the lack of vouchers for this expenditure, the Court determines, in equity, that the State must deliver the sum of US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) to Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán; US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) to representative Carlos Pop; US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) to the Asociación de Abogados y Notarios Mayas, and US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) to the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights. F. Method of complying with the payments ordered 284. The State shall make the payment of the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and to reimburse costs and expenses established in this judgment directly to the persons indicated herein, within one year of notification of this judgment, in accordance with the following paragraphs. 285. If the beneficiaries should be deceased before they receive the respective compensation, this shall be made directly to their heirs, pursuant to the applicable domestic law. 286. The State shall comply with its pecuniary obligations by payment in quetzals or the equivalent in United States dollars, using the exchange rate in force on the New York Stock Exchange (United States of America) the day before the payment to make the calculation. If, for reasons that can be attributed to the beneficiaries of the compensation or their heirs, it was not possible to pay the established amounts within the time frame indicated, the State shall deposit those amounts in their favor in a deposit account or certificate in a solvent Guatemalan financial institution, in United States dollars, and in the most favorable financial conditions allowed by banking practice and law. If the corresponding compensation is not claimed after 10 years, the amounts shall be returned to the State with the interest accrued. Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 82, Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2015. Series C No. 300, para. 181. 362 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 275, and Case of the Santa Bárbara Campesino Community v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, para. 347. 361 92