these expenses. Regarding the honorarium of CELS for its work on the international case, they asked the Court to establish this based on the equity principle. The Commission did not refer to this point. 190. The State indicated that it would “await the [ruling] made in this regard,” pursuant to criteria of reasonableness that should predominate when requesting and establishing the amounts corresponding to the reimbursement of the expenses required in order to access the internal and the international proceedings, and because the representatives had asked that these be established based on equity. Meanwhile, in the Agreement, the parties asked the Court to rule on the scope of the reparations for the victims, which should include the costs and expenses incurred in the domestic and the international jurisdiction. E.2. Considerations of the Court 191. The Court reiterates that, according to its case law, 283 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 internal and the international level, entail disbursements that must be compensated when the international responsibility of the State has been declared in a judgment. 192. Regarding the reimbursement of expenses, the Court must make a prudent assessment of their scope, which includes the expenses generated before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, as well as those arising during the proceedings before the interAmerican 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. 284 193. First, although the representatives did not submit evidence of the expenses incurred as a result of the demand for justice of the Gutiérrez family before the Argentine authorities, the Court has verified the constant activity of Nilda del Valle Maldonado and Francisco Gutiérrez in the criminal proceedings initiated owing to the facts of the case (supra paras. 47, 60, 141 and 142). Consequently, the Court orders, in equity, that the State pay each of them the sum of US$6,000.00 (six thousand United States dollars) for the costs incurred in the domestic litigation. 194. Furthermore, regarding the inter-American litigation, the Court notes that the representatives forwarded various vouchers for air travel to the seat of the Inter-American Commission in Washington, D.C., amounting to US$4,213.10 (four thousand two hundred and thirteen United States dollars and ten cents). The State did not make any observations in this regard. Consequently, the Court orders the State to reimburse this sum to the representatives of the victims. In addition, the Court notes that the representatives did not provide evidence or indicate which family members of Mr. Gutiérrez had travelled to the seat of the Inter-American Commission in Washington, D.C., because of the case, so that it will not order an amount for this concept. Also, the Court will not take into account the vouchers forwarded by the representatives related to a trip to New York, United States of America, because they did not indicate how this is related to the case. 283 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 39, and Case of Luna López, supra, para. 258. 284 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 82, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.), supra, para. 316. 63