a) The cost of mailing the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence by international courier; b) The travel, accommodation and per diem expenses relating to the presence of the inter-American defenders at the hearings in the case; c) The travel, accommodation and per diem expenses of the inter-American defenders to meet with the presumed victim in person in Buenos Aires, and d) The cost of mailing the final written arguments by international courier. 162. Regarding the request for US$10,000 (ten thousand United States dollars) as fees for the lawyers who defended his case in the domestic sphere, the State asked the Court to reject this because the representatives had not provided any voucher that would prove or validate payment of this sum. Regarding the request for US$10,000 (ten thousand United States dollars) as fees for the professionals who represented him in the international sphere, the State noted that there was no evidence that, since the start of the instant case, any professional other than Mr. Jenkins had defended it. 163. The State also indicated that the request for reimbursement of expenses claimed by Mr. Jenkins’ representatives should be examined prudently and that this item included both the expenses incurred before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction and those incurred during the proceedings before the inter-American system, taking into account the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of the international jurisdiction for the protection of human rights. It indicated that Mr. Jenkins had requested the reimbursement of the necessary and anticipated expenses of the interAmerican defenders without providing any specific evidence in this regard. Consequently, and in the hypothesis that the Court did not reject this in the instant case, the State asked the Court to establish the costs and expenses based on equity. 164. The Court reiterates that, pursuant to its case law,129 costs and expenses form part of the concept of reparation because the actions taken by the victims to obtain justice at both the domestic and the international level entail disbursements that should be compensated when the international responsibility of a State has been declared in a judgment. The Court has indicated that “the claims of the victims or their representatives for costs and expenses, together with the supporting evidence must be presented to the Court at the first procedural moment granted to them; that is, with the pleadings and motions brief, without prejudice to those claims being updated subsequently, based on the new costs and expenses incurred as a result of the proceedings before this Court.”130 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 it is considered to represent and that, in the case of alleged financial disbursements, the items and their justification is clearly established.131 165. In the instant case, the Court notes that the case file does not contain any precise probative support for the costs and expenses incurred by Mr. Jenkins or his representatives in relation to the processing of the case before the Commission. However, the Court considers that this necessarily entailed financial disbursements and it therefore determines that the State must deliver to Mr. Jenkins the reasonable sum of US$10,000 (ten thousand United States dollars) for the concept of costs and expenses arising from the domestic proceedings [sic]. At the stage of monitoring compliance with this judgment, the Court may establish that the State reimburse the victim or his 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 Ruiz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 251. 129 Cf. Article 40(d) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. See also, Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 79 and 82, and Case of Ruiz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 251. 130 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 277, and Case of Ruiz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 251. 131 37