be reasonable that [...] the Court order the State to reimburse to the CEDH "[...] the amount of 15,000 dollars." However, lacking evidence of "all the expenses incurred," the representatives requested the Court to "determine how much the State should provide to the CEDHU" based on its jurisprudence and equity. 160. The State has not taken a position regarding the claims of the representatives on costs and expenses. 161. As the Court has indicated previously, costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparations, when the actions taken by the victims in order to obtain justice at both the domestic and the international levels involve expenditure that should be compensated when the State’s international responsibility is declared in a judgment that returns a guilty verdict. Regarding reimbursement, the Court must prudently assess the scope, which includes the expenses incurred before the authorities of the domestic system of justice, as well as those arising from 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 may be based on the principle of equity, taking into consideration the expenses indicated by the parties, provided the quantum is reasonable. 115 162. The Court has noted repeatedly that “the claims of the victims or their representatives in regards to costs and expenses, and the evidence that sustains it, must be presented to the Court in the first procedural moment granted, namely, in the brief of motions and pleadings, without detriment that such claims are updated at a later time, pursuant to the new costs and expenses that are incurred in the proceeding.116 In this regard, it was found that the representatives incurred expenses related to the handling of this case before the domestic courts and before the Commission and this Court regarding professional services, mailing expenditures, airplane tickets, lodging expenses, and other expenses related to visas and departure taxes, etc., related to the public hearing in San Jose, Costa Rica, for which they submitted the receipts of such expenses. Nevertheless, the Court notes that the presentation of the receipts and the requests for payment of professional services of Mr. Edison Burbano Portilla, the expenses related to travel and lodging of Attorney Xavier Mejía and Mr. Mejía Idrovo in the City of Washington in the year 2008, as well as some expenses incurred by CEDHU before the Commission were timebarred(supra para. 39) and is therefore inadmissible. 163. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and considering that the victims or their representatives have incurred certain expenses, the Court sets a total amount of $ 15,000.00 (fifteen thousand dollars of the United States of America) for costs and expenses incurred in the litigation of the Inter-American proceeding. This amount must be delivered to Mr. Mejía Idrovo, who in turn must pay the amount corresponding to the persons or organizations, which have represented him. 115 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria V. Argentina, supra note 114, para. 82; Case of Abrill Alosilla V. Perú, supra note 19, para. 137, and Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 12, para. 144. 116 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiquez V. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C. No. 170, para. 275; Case of of Salvador Chiriboga V. Ecuador. Reparations and Costs, supra note 98, para. 138, and Case of Abrill Alosilla V. Perú, supra note 19, para. 137. 47