64 226. The Court has indicated that “the claims of the victims or their representatives for costs and expenses, and the supporting evidence, must be presented to the Court at the first procedural opportunity granted to them; that is, in the motions and pleadings brief, without prejudice to those claims being updated subsequently, with the new costs and expenses arising from the proceedings before this Court.” 274 Furthermore, the Court reiterates that it is not sufficient to merely forward the probative documents; rather, the parties are required to include arguments that relate the evidence to the fact it represents and, in the case of alleged financial disbursements, that establish clearly the items and their justification.275 227. In the instant case, the Court notes that the representatives did not indicate the amount of the expenditure incurred during the litigation at the domestic level, and did not provide any evidence in this regard, because the facts occurred approximately 28 years ago and the domestic proceedings began in 1998; that is, approximately 19 years ago. Therefore, the Court has no evidence to determine the expenses incurred. Regarding the expenses incurred by the Asociación Pro Rights Humanos (APRODEH) during the international proceedings, no evidence was provided to establish these. However, the Court considers it reasonable to suppose that the victim made financial disbursements during the years this case was processed before the internal jurisdiction. The Court also finds it reasonable that Mr. Lagos del Campo and his representatives have incurred different expenses such as for honoraria, gathering of evidence, transportation, and communication services during the international processing of this case. Consequently, the Court decides to establish the reasonable amount of US$20,000 (twenty thousand United States dollars) for the work carried out in the litigation of this case, which must be delivered to Mr. Lagos del Campo, who shall deliver the corresponding sum to his representatives based on the assistance they have provided. F. Reimbursement of expenditure to the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund 228. The victim requested access to the Court’s Legal Assistance Fund. In an order of the President of July 14, 2016, it was established that the financial assistance would be allocated to cover, inter alia, the necessary travel and accommodation expenses for the victim to attend the public hearing, and the expenses relating to the preparation and mailing of the affidavit of expert witness Carlos Jibaja Zárate.276 229. In a Secretariat note of April 7, 2017, a report on the disbursements made from the Victims’ Assistance Fund in this case, which amounted to US$1,336.81 (one thousand three hundred and thirty-six United States dollars and eighty-one cents),277 was sent to the State. Pursuant to article 5 of the Rules for the Operation of this Fund, Peru was granted a specific time frame for presenting any observations it deemed pertinent, 278 and advised that the said amount Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations, supra, para.79, and Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru, supra, para. 230. 274 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. 277, and Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru, supra, para. 230. 275 Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 14, 2016, first operative paragraph. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/ asuntos/lagos_fv_16.pdf 276 The amount requested corresponds to: (i) air fare: US$457.81 (four hundred and fifty-seven United States dollars and 81 cents); (ii) per diem: US$636.00 (six hundred and thirty-six United States dollars); (iii) miscellaneous transportation costs: US$100.00 (one hundred United States dollars), and (iv) affidavit: US$143.00 (one hundred and forty-three United States dollars) (merits file, f. 759). 277 The State presented its observations on April 17, 2017. Peru argued that the amount disbursed for the per diem of $636,00 (six hundred and thirty-six United States dollars) equaled $212 (two hundred and twelve United States dollars) a day, without any explanation as to how that amount was allocated. In addition, there was no indication why the Court had chosen the category “PS” with the per diem of $212; the State therefore asked the Court to explain the criteria used 278