31 preparation of records, communications, opinions and subsequent dissemination, by different means, of said information to the American Commission” amounted to US$ 5.000, 00 (five thousand dollars of the United States of America). Later on, in the brief of final arguments, for the same items, the representative requested the reimbursement of US$ 7.000, 00 (seven thousand dollars of the United States of America). The representative did not explain the reason for such increase. 150. Likewise, in the initial brief, the representative indicated that “for three nights of accommodation at a hotel in San José de Costa Rica, […] plus the meals and travel expenses, the Venezuelan State should reimbursed [Mr. Barreto Leiva] the amount of a thousand and seven hundred dollars of the United States of America (US$ 1.700, 00)”. In the brief of final arguments, the representative increased such amount, without further explanation, to US$ 2.500, 00 (two thousand five hundred dollars of the United States of America). 151. The representative requested the reimbursement of US$ 3.000,00 (three thousand dollars of the United States of America) for airline tickets to attend the hearing held in this case. Finally, it argued that the State should pay, for “professional fee”, the amount of US$ 30.000, 00 (thirty thousand dollars of the United States of America) to Mr. Carlos Armando Figueredo Planchard and US$ 10.000, 00 (ten thousand dollars of the United States of America) to Mr. Carlos Rafael Pérez. 152. The Tribunal considers that the claims of the victims or their representatives as to costs and expenses and the supporting evidence must be offered to the Court at the first occasion granted to them, that is, in the brief of requests and motions, without prejudice to the fact that such claim may be later on updated, according to new costs and expenses incurred during the processing of the case before this Court.83 Likewise, the Court has considered that “it is not sufficient to remit probative documents; rather the parties must develop the reasoning that relates the evidence to the fact under consideration, and, in the case of alleged financial disbursements, the items and their justification must be described clearly.”84 153. In the instant case, the representative did not furnish evidence to justify the disbursement of the alleged expenses. However, the Court also notes that the victim incurred in expenses to attend the public hearing held in the instant case at the seat of the Tribunal, as well as expenses for the remittance of briefs, among other things, during the processing before this Tribunal. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that during the 12 years of the processing of the case before the Commission, the victim made economic disbursements. Based on the foregoing and considering the lack of receipts, the Court equitably determines the amount of US$ 10.000, 00 (ten thousand dollars of the United States of America) in favor of Mr. Barreto Leiva. Said amount includes future expenses that the victim may incur during the procedure of monitoring compliance with this Judgment. Mr. Barreto Leiva shall deliver, in turn, the amount he deems appropriate to the persons who acted as their representatives at the domestic level and in the processing of the case before the Inter-American system. 6.3. Method of Compliance with the Payments Ordered 83 Cf. Case of Molina Theissen V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C Nº. 108, para. 22; Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. V. Ecuador, supra note 58, para. 275; and Case of Tristán Donoso V. Panamá, supra note 11, para. 215. 84 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. V. Ecuador, supra note 58, para. 277.