consulted.” Additionally, he requested US$10,926.43 for “the cost of expert evidence, the notary and expenses resulting from the preparation of briefs.” 365. In his pleadings and motions brief, representative Trejos asked the Court to order the State to reimburse the costs and expenses he had incurred. In total, he asked the Court to establish, in equity, the sum of US$45,000.00 for “representing the victims” and for “the measures taken at the domestic and the international level since 2001 in order to obtain justice for all of the victims as de facto representative of all of the petitioners in this case before Costa Rica’s judicial and administrative authorities and before the Inter-American Commission, as well as of the couples represented […] before the Inter-American Court.” In his final arguments, representative May repeated the requests made by representative Trejos and asked that the Court include “invoices for supervening procedural expenses.” 366. The State indicated that “the State cannot agree to the sum that is being requested, because the amounts are unreasonable, and even some of the amounts claimed are in excess of the non-pecuniary damage claimed for some of the presumed victims.” Considerations of the Court 367. As the Court has indicated on previous occasions, costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparation established in Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 515 368. The Court has stated that the claims of the victims or their representatives for costs and expenses, and the evidence that supports them, must be presented to the Court at the first procedural moment granted them, in other words in the pleadings and motions brief, notwithstanding the possibility of updating the said claims subsequently, in keeping with the new costs and expenses incurred during the proceedings before this Court. 516 369. Regarding the reimbursement of costs and expenses, it corresponds to the Court to evaluate their scope prudently; they includes the expenses generated before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, as well as those arising during the proceedings before the interAmerican 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. 517 Moreover, the Court reiterates that it is not enough to submit evidentiary documents, but rather the parties must also provide arguments relating the evidence to the fact it is considered to represent and, since this relates to alleged financial disbursements, the items and their justification must be established clearly. 518 370. In the instant case, the Court observes that representative Trejos, who represented the victims during the proceedings before the Commission (supra paras. 1 and 8), died 515 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 79, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 290. 516 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador, para. 275, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 292. 517 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 82; Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012 Series C No. 250, para. 314. 518 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 Vélez Restrepo and family v. Colombia, para. 307.