the basis of the principle of equity and taking into account the expenses declared by the parties, provided the amounts are reasonable. 119 132. The Court has held that “the claims of the victims or their representatives in relation to costs and expenses, and the evidence supporting them, must be presented to the Court at the first procedural opportunity granted them, namely, in the brief containing pleadings and motions, without prejudice to those claims being updated subsequently, to include new costs and expenses incurred as a result of the proceedings before this Court.” 120 The Court also recalls that it is not enough to merely remit probative documents; rather the parties must develop the reasoning linking the evidence to the fact under consideration and, in the case of alleged financial outlays, the items of expenditure and their justification must be described clearly. 121 133. The Court notes, however, that the representatives have not submitted evidence of costs and expenses incurred by the victims, and the arguments presented on this subject are insufficient to provide full justification of the amounts requested. It further cautions that the representatives had made reference to the “victims” when they explained the expenditures, but the breakdown of the total amount did not indicate who had incurred each expenditure, except for the items “legal representation,” “documentation,” and “postal costs.” It notes, finally, that the payment of the bond at the time of the June, 1984 detention was also covered in the amount requested. The Court understands that these procedures necessarily required monetary outlays, and it will therefore set the amounts in equity; the sum will not, however, include the cost of the bond, which was already ordered (supra paras. 121 and 127). The Court will accordingly set the costs and expenses as follows: a) USD 285.00 (two hundred eighty-five United States dollars) for each of the following: Otilia Flores Ortiz, Lorena Deras Flores, Herminio Deras Flores, Eustaquia García Alvarado, Domingo Deras Henríquez , Alba Luz Deras García, Irma Isabel Deras García, Consuelo Deras García, Luis Rolando Deras García, Héctor García, Marlen García Pineda, José Herminio García, Sandra Ivón Hernández Deras, Marlon Javier García Barahona, Julio Cesar Chavarría Banegas, Elba Flores Ortiz, and Cristóbal Rufino Hernández Pérez, in expenses for “legal representation,” “documentation” and “postal costs;” b) USD 540.00 (five hundred forty United States dollars) for each of the following: Otilia Flores Ortiz, Irma Isabel Deras García, Luis Rolando Deras García, and Alba Luz Deras García, in view of specific outlays they made that, according to the representatives, were all in the same amount; c) USD 2,850.00 (two thousand eight hundred fifty United States dollars) for Irma Deras García for expenditures incurred by her daughter, Patricia Chavarría Deras, for the public hearing before this Court; 119 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 Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 112. 120 Cf. Case of Garrido y Baigorria v. Argentina, supra, para. 79, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 252. 121 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 277, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 252.