D.3. Costs and expenses D.3.1. Arguments of the parties 312. The representatives asked the Court to establish, in equity, an amount that it considered appropriate for costs and expenses, taking into consideration the expenses incurred by the victims’ representatives during the national and international litigation. They clarified that, due to the passage of time, they do not have all the documents that authenticate the expenses incurred during the processing of the case, which include: airplane tickets, accommodation, fees, telephone calls, computer, internet and fax services, and remittances by courier from Rabinal, Guatemala, to Washington, D.C., and San José. In addition, in their final written arguments, the representatives asked the Court to order an amount of US$12,040.99 for the expenses incurred during the visit to Costa Rica for the public hearing held in this case. They also asked the Court to take into account that other people have assisted in the litigation of the instant case. 313. The State indicated that the representatives had not presented documentation to authenticate their claims for costs and expenses. It also affirmed that, since May 12, 2008, and on repeated occasions, it had expressed its willingness to reach a friendly settlement, but the petitioners had not accepted this offer. Therefore, it asked the Court not to establish an amount for costs and expenses in favor of the victims in this case. D.3.2. Considerations of the Court 314. As the Court has indicated, costs and expenses form part of the concept of reparation,371 because the activity deployed by the victims in order to obtain justice, at both the national and the international level, entails expenses that must be compensated when the State’s international responsibility has been declared by a guilty verdict. Regarding their reimbursement, the Court must make a prudent assessment of their scope, which includes the expenses incurred before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, and also those generated 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 consideration the expenses indicated by the parties, provided that their quantum is reasonable. 315. First, the Court considers it pertinent to clarify that the friendly settlement agreements mentioned in Articles 48(1)(f), 49, and 50(1) of the American Convention are optional procedural mechanisms, and the petitioner before the inter-American system has no obligation to accept an agreement offered by the State. This is revealed clearly by the conditional tense used in the said Articles 49 and 50 of the Convention.372 371 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 79 to 83, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, supra, para. 328. 372 Article 49 of the Convention establishes: “[i]f a friendly settlement has been reached in accordance with paragraph 1.f of Article 48, the Commission shall draw up a report, which shall be transmitted to the petitioner and to the States Parties to this Convention, and shall then be communicated to the Secretary General of the Organization of American States for publication. This report shall contain a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached. If any party in the case so requests, the fullest possible information shall be provided to it.” Article 50(1) of the Convention stipulates: “[i]f a settlement is not reached, the Commission shall, within the time limit established by its Statute, draw up a report setting forth the facts and stating its conclusions. If the report, in whole or in part, does not represent the unanimous agreement of the members of the Commission, any member may 105