124. The Court has developed in its jurisprudence the concept of pecuniary damages and has established that it presupposes the loss of or detriment to the victims’ income, the pertinent expenses incurred and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case.129 The representative has not provided any evidence on the amounts that should be set for pecuniary damages. Nonetheless, the Court considers it necessary to compensate the loss of earnings that Ms. Brítez Arce would have received during her life and, thus, sets, in equity, the sum of USD 64,000.00 (sixty-four thousand United States dollars), as compensation for loss of her earnings, which is to be divided equally between her children, Ezequiel Martín and Vanina Verónica. 125. As to non-pecuniary damages, the Court finds that Ms. Brítez Arce should be compensated under this concept and orders, in equity, the payment of USD 60,000.00 (sixty thousand United States dollars). This amount is to be divided equally and paid to her children, Ezequiel Martín and Vanina Verónica. In addition, the Court recognized in its judgment the suffering of the children of Ms. Brítez Arce due to the events analyzed in this case. Therefore, considering the circumstances, the violations committed, the different degrees of suffering caused and undergone, and the time elapsed, the Court orders, in equity, the payment of the sum of USD 25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand United States dollars) as non-pecuniary damages for each of the children of Ms. Brítez Arce declared victims in this judgment. F. Costs and expenses 126. The representative claimed that he and his wife, as uncle and aunt of Ezequiel Martín and Vanina Verónica, assumed all of the costs required by the proceedings of this case; among them, those referring to the expert medical opinions, lawyers, travel and lodging and paperwork and that they will not claim any of those expenses from their nephew and niece. Nonetheless, the representative did not indicate the value of those expenses nor did he provide vouchers for them. He pointed out that he had intervened in this case before the Commission and the Court since April 20, 2001; in other words, 21 years ago. 127. The State did not refer to this matter. 128. The Court reiterates that, in accordance with its case law, costs and expenses are part of the concept of reparation because the activities carried out by the victims in order to obtain justice, at both the national and the international levels, imply expenditures that must be compensated when the international responsibility of the State is declared in a judgment. Regarding the reimbursement of costs and expenses, the Court must prudently assess their scope, including the expenses incurred before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction and those incurred during the proceedings before the inter-American system, considering the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of the international jurisdiction for the protection of human rights. This assessment may be based on the principle of equity and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided that their quantum is reasonable.130 129. The Court has held that the claims of the victims or their representatives with regard to costs and expenses, and the supporting evidence, must be presented to the Court at the first procedural opportunity granted to them -in the motions and pleadings brief-, without prejudice to those claims being subsequently updated to include new costs and expenses incurred in the Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 43 and Case of Leguizamón Zaván et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 132. 129 130 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, paras. 42, 46 and 47 and Case of Leguizamón Zaván et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 142. 33