113 337. The Court reiterates that, pursuant to its case law, 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 international level entails disbursements that must be compensated when the international responsibility of the State has been declared in a judgment against it. Regarding the reimbursement of expenses, it is for the Court to make a prudent assessment of their scope, which includes the expenses arising before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, and also those arising 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. This assessment may be made based on the principle of equity and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided that their quantum is reasonable. 498 As it has indicated on other occasions, the Court recalls that it is not sufficient merely to forward probative documents; rather the parties are also required to include arguments that relate the evidence to the fact that it is considered to represent and, in the case of alleged financial disbursements, the items and their justification must be established clearly. 499 338. The Court has verified that the representatives forwarded vouchers relating to the purchase of air tickets, the payment of hotels, transportation, food and expenses incurred owing to working meetings held in Peru, as well as to attend the public hearing held at the seat of the Court in this case. Regarding the documents contested by the State, the Court notes that, indeed, CEJIL presented some vouchers related to expenses prior to its incorporation into the litigation before the inter-American system on November 19, 2008, and others whose relationship to this case is not explained, as well as internal documents of the organization listing expenses that are not accompanied by the respective payment voucher. Consequently, the Court will not consider these documents. The representatives also presented vouchers that do not correspond only to expenses incurred due to this case and, in fairness, these have been deducted from the calculation made by the Court. 339. Nevertheless, the Court finds it reasonable to presume that other disbursements existed over the approximately 21 years during which APRODEH acted, and the approximately six years, during which CEJIL acted, in the processing of this case. Consequently, the Court orders the State to reimburse, in equity, the sum of US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) to APRODEH, and US$15,000.00 (fifteen thousand United States dollars) to CEJIL. These amounts must be delivered directly to the representative organizations. As it has in other cases, 500 at the stage of monitoring compliance with judgment, the Court may order the reimbursement by the State to the victims or their representatives of any subsequent expenses that are reasonable and duly authenticated. F) Reimbursement of the expenses to the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund 340. The representatives presented requests to access the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of the Court to cover certain expenses related to the presentation of evidence. In Orders of the President of the Court of February 21, 2013, and May 7, 2014, it was decided to admit the request filed by the presumed victims to access the Victim’s Assistance Fund and it was 498 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 82, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of 2May 9, 2014. Series C No. 279, para. 450. 499 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 Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, para. 496. 500 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra, para. 291, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 195.