States dollars) for each deceased victim, US$30,000 (thirty thousand United States dollars) for each surviving victim, and US$10,000 (ten thousand United States dollars) for each of the next of kin declared victims in this case. C.3. Costs and expenses C.3.1. Arguments of the parties 240. The representatives asked that Dr. María Cristina Calderón be paid US$2,794.44 for her services in monitoring the situation of the victims in this case, to cover travel expenses from December 2016 to date. They also asked that the Court determine, in equity, the value of 14 additional trips made by Dr. Calderón starting in 2000, and the expenses of two trips she made to Washington D.C., during the processing of the case before the Commission. Lastly, they indicated that Dr. Calderón had incurred expenses amounting to US$327.80 for legal procedures related to this case. In addition, they asked the Court to determine, in equity, the amount that should be paid to the Asociación de Salud Integral, which has acted as the victims’ representative and incurred expenses for their food and transport. Lastly, they indicated that CEJIL had acted as a representative of the victims in the international proceedings since August 2002 and, for the exercise of this representation, they asked that the State of Guatemala recognize the sum of US$27,170.08 for this concept and for salaries and notarial expenses. Regarding future expenditure, they asked that the judgment anticipate an amount for the expenses at the stage of monitoring compliance. 241. The State indicated that only those expenses relating to claims for costs and expenses that complied with the criteria identified by the Court should be reimbursed, taking into account that the items were adequate and reasonable for the proceedings that had been conducted. Regarding future expenses, it indicated that the representatives’ request in this regard was not justified because, for the Court to grant it, such expenses would have to be measurable and sustainable in advance, which, in the State’s opinion, was not possible in this case, because they responded to conditionalities and there were no grounds for them; therefore they did not fall within the Court’s parameters. Lastly, Guatemala asserted that future expenses run counter to legal certainty and should be proportionate to the rights that have been violated. C.3.2. Considerations of the Court 242. The Court reiterated that, based on its case law, 257 costs and expenses form part of the concept of reparation, because the actions undertaken by the victims to obain justice, at both the domestic and the international level, entail expenditure that must be compensated when the international responsibility of the State has been declared in a judgment. Regarding reimbursement of costs and expenses, the Court must make a prudent assessment of their scope, which includes the expenses originating before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, and also 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 equity principle and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provide their quantum is reasonable.258 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 42, and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 15, 2018. Series C No. 353, para. 401. 257 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 Herzog et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 15, 2018. Series C No. 353, para. 401. 258 78