187. The amount established must be delivered to each of the victims: Jorge Humberto Villarroel Merino, Mario Romel Cevallos Moreno, Jorge Enrique Coloma Gaibor, Fernando Marcelo López Ortiz, Leoncio Amílcar Ascázubi Albán and Alfonso Patricio Vinueza Pánchez. E. Costs and expenses 188. The representative only referred to the expenses that the victims incurred individually. Specifically, Mr. Villarroel Merino requested the sum of US$70,000.00 (seventy thousand United States dollars). Mr. Ascázubi Albán indicated that, “he accepted the good judgment of the Court” for the costs and expenses. He also asked for the expenses incurred to pay: (a) the legal fees of his defense counsel; (b) fees of defense counsel and experts, travel, and costs, etc. related to his defense; (c) defense counsel for the defense of the complaint filed against the State in one of the country’s courts; (d) payment of professional fees for his defense in the complaint filed against the president of the National Police Court of Justice before the Supreme Court of Justice of Ecuador. Mr. Cevallos Moreno indicated that, to defend his case, he had had to pay legal professionals. However, the representative did not refer to the expenses incurred by the victims in the proceedings before the Commission and the Inter-American Court. The Commission did not refer to costs and expenses. 189. The State argued that no violation had been committed and, therefore, it was not appropriate to grant costs and expenses. Nevertheless, if it was required to pay costs and expenses, these should be reasonable. The State reiterated that, since this item referred to alleged monetary disbursements for actions taken during the judicial proceedings in the internal and international jurisdiction, the victims should have included this in their arguments and justified the expenditure with vouchers and other receipts or pertinent documents, and this was not done. Thus, for costs, Mr. Villarroel Merino alone had specifically requested US$70,000.00 (seventy thousand United States dollars), while Messrs. Cevallos Moreno, López Ortiz, Ascázubi Albán, Coloma Gaibor and Vinueza Pánchez had not specified the amount they claimed under this heading. Therefore, since the necessary documentation and evidence was lacking, the State asked the Court to establish a sum based on the equity principle and in keeping with its previous case law. 190. The Court reiterates that, according to its case law, costs and expenses form part of the concept of reparation because all the actions taken by the victims in order to obtain justice, at both the domestic and the international level, entail disbursements that should be compensated when the State’s international responsibility has been declared in a judgment. Regarding the reimbursement of costs and expenses, it corresponds to the Court to prudently assess their scope which includes the expenses incurred before the authorities of the internal jurisdiction as well as those arising during 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 principle of equity and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided their quantum is reasonable.165 191. The Court has indicated that the claims of the victims or their representatives for costs and expenses, and the evidence substantiating these, must be submitted to the Court at the first procedural moment granted to them; that is, in the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence, without prejudice to such claims being updated subsequently, in keeping with the new costs and 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 Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 424, para. 192. 165 46