-96- b) Since “CEJIL is a non-profit association, it cannot be presumed that there is a representation contract involving payment, which would enable it to charge for the expenses it incurred on behalf of the Serrano family”; and c) “The reparations […] transcend the conditions of those they represent” because: i) Regarding the lawyers’ salaries and honoraria, “no lawyers ha[d] taken part in either the proceedings in the domestic jurisdiction or the proceedings in the international jurisdiction,” since there was no evidence of their participation in the domestic proceedings or in the international proceedings. “Moreover, the petition was submitted to the Commission in 1999 and honoraria are claimed as of 1997”; ii) Regarding travel expenses for employees and the next of kin, “the description of these travel expenses includes the years 1995 to 1998, which precede the petition submitted to the Commission in 1999. Also, in the domestic jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s domicile establishes the jurisdiction”; iii) Regarding the expenses for medicines and mental health workshops, these are “not item[s] that can be considered of a jurisdictional nature, and would be included in the reparations to the next of kin”; iv) The honoraria of Calixto Zelaya for advisory services in the cases filed before the courts and for the preparation of the cases before the Commission, cannot be attributed “to this case alone”; v) “Expenses incurred for an alleged trip to Los Angeles are included, and it cannot be presumed [that] this was undertaken for jurisdictional activities”; and vi) Fuel expenses cannot be considered “of a jurisdictional nature, since […] the Serrano family lives in Chalatenango and […] does not have significant fuel expenses.” Considerations of the Court 205. As the Court has indicated on previous occasions,71 costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparation embodied in Article 63(1) of the American Convention, because the measures taken by the victims or their representatives in order to obtain justice at the domestic and the international level imply expenditure that must be compensated when the State’s international responsibility has been declared in a judgment against it. For purposes of reimbursement, the Court must prudently assess their scope, which includes the expenses incurred before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, and also those incurred during the proceedings before the inter-American system, taking into account the circumstances of each specific case and the nature of the international jurisdiction for the protection of human rights. This assessment may be based on the principle of fairness and by taking into account the expenses indicated and authenticated by the parties, providing the quantum is reasonable. 71 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 3, para. 143; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 115; and Case of De la Cruz Flores, supra note 8, para. 177.