incurred expenses including for travel and accommodation. They had also incurred administrative expenses and others corresponding to the legal work providing specific attention to the case, which included research, compilation and presentation of evidence, interviews, and preparation of briefs. 248. In addition, CEJIL had acted as the victims’ representative in the international proceedings since August 2003. In the exercise of this representation it had incurred expenses that included travel and accommodation. It had also incurred expenses corresponding to the legal work providing specific attention to the case, which included research, compilation and presentation of evidence, interviews, and preparation of briefs. On this basis, they asked the Court to establish the sum of US$23,084.77 for expenses. Furthermore, they asked the Court to add the sum of US$9,838.00 (nine thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight United States dollars) to the sum indicated in their pleadings and motions brief, and to establish the sum of US$32,922.00 (thirty-two thousand nine hundred and twenty-two United States dollars) for expenses and costs. They also asked the Court to order that this amount be reimbursed directly to CEJIL by the Guatemalan State. Lastly, they asked the Court to establish in its judgment the possibility of establishing future expenses resulting from the monitoring of compliance with the judgment it would deliver in this case. 249. The State indicated that the vouchers presented by the ICCPG lacked authenticity and legal certainty and, therefore, were not reliable. In addition, the ICCPG had presented the payroll for all its employees as a voucher as if the only source of income and the only work performed was the litigation of the case of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes. Added to this, according to the State, the date of some of the vouchers was incongruent. Consequently, the State rejected each and every one of the supposed expenses incurred by the ICCPG because they were not directly related to the instant case and, therefore, asked the Court to declare that they were inadmissible and to reject them. Similarly, the State asked the Court to require CEJIL to prove the supposed expenses incurred that were directly related to this case with the respective documents that supported the expenditure incurred. According to the State, the details and the amounts presented in the table in the pleadings and motions brief did not constitute any evidence or legal certainty about them and, therefore, the State indicated that it would not comment on them. 250. The Commission did not present specific arguments on this point. 251. The Court reiterates that, pursuant to its case law, 253 costs and expenses form part of the concept of reparation because the activity deployed by the victims in order to obtain justice, at both the national and the international level, entails expenditure that must be compensated when the international responsibility of the State has been declared in a judgment. Regarding the reimbursement of costs and expenses, it is for the Court to make a prudent assessment of their scope, which includes the expenses incurred before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, and also those generated during the process before the inter-American system, taking into account the circumstances of the particular 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 their quantum is reasonable.254 The Court has also indicated that “the claims of the victims or their representatives for costs and expenses, and the evidence that supports these, must be presented to the Court at the first procedural moment granted to them, that is, in the pleadings and motions brief, without prejudice to such claims being updated subsequently in keeping with the new costs and expenses incurred due to the proceedings before this Court.”255 In addition, the Court reiterates that it is not sufficient merely to forward probative documents; rather, the parties are required to include arguments that relate the evidence to the fact 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 Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 80. 254 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 82, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, supra, para. 84. 255 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 79 and 82, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, supra, para. 85. 253 54