reasonable amounts granted by the Court under this heading range from US$2,000 to US$25,000.”474 342. The Court reiterates that, in accordance with it case law,475 costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparation, because the activities deployed by the victims in order to obtain justice at both the national and the international level entail disbursements that must be compensated when the State’s international responsibility has been declared in a guilty verdict. Regarding the reimbursement, the Court must make a prudent assessment of their scope, which includes the expenses arising before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, as well as those arising during the proceedings before this Court, taking into account the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of the international jurisdiction for the protection of human rights. This assessment can be made based on the principle of equity and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided that their quantum is reasonable.476 343. The Court has indicated that “the claims of the victims or their representatives for costs and expenses, and the evidence that support them, 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 these claims being updated subsequently, in keeping with the new costs and expenses incurred as a result of the proceedings before this Court.”477 In addition, the Court reiterates that it is not sufficient to forward probative documents, but the parties must submit arguments relating the evidence to the fact that it represents and that, in the case of financial disbursement, the headings and their justification are clearly explained.478 344. In the instant case, the Court observes that the representatives did not submit any evidence corresponding to the costs and expenses of the proceedings. Despite this, it can be presumed that the representatives incurred expenses in the processing of the case before the inter-American system. Consequently, the Court establishes that the State must pay, for costs and expenses, the amount of US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) which will be divided between the “Joel Sierra” Human Rights Foundation, the Asociación para la Promoción Social Alternativa Minga, the Humanidad Vigente Corporación Jurídica and the “José Alvear Restrepo” Lawyers’ Group as appropriate. F. Means of complying with the payments ordered 345. The State must reimburse the costs and expenses established in this Judgment directly to the organizations indicated herein, within one year of notification of this Judgment. 346. The State must comply with the pecuniary obligations by payment in United States dollars or in Colombian pesos. 347. If, for reasons that can be attributed to the beneficiaries of the compensation or their heirs, it is not possible to pay the amounts determined within the indicated time frame, the State must deposit the said amounts in their favor in an account or certificate of deposit in a solvent Colombian financial institute, in United States dollars, and in the most favorable conditions allowed 474 In this regard, the State referred to the Court’s case law in relation to the establishment of these amounts; specifically, it indicated the following cases: Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia. Reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 31, and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. 475 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs, para. 79, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 389. 476 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs, para. 82, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 389. 477 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. 275, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 390. 478 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador, para. 277 and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 390. ‐ 96 ‐