173. This Court has indicated that “the claims of the victims or their representatives with regard to costs and expenses, and the evidence to support them, must be submitted to the Court at the first procedural opportunity granted to them; that is, in the pleadings and motions brief, without prejudice to such claims being updated subsequently, in keeping with the costs and expenses incurred during the proceedings before this Court.” 187 The Court also reiterates that it is not sufficient merely to forward evidentiary documents; rather, the parties are required to include arguments that relate the evidence to the facts that they represent and, in the case of alleged financial disbursements, clearly specify the items and their justification. 188 174. The Court has reviewed the representatives’ requests for reimbursement for costs and expenses and whether they have provided documentation to support their requests. Concerning the request made in the pleadings and motions brief, this Court notes that the representatives presented an explanatory table for the expenses, and that the amount requested corresponds to expenditures during the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission, including the following categories: travel expenses for 2010–2021 (10%), salaries and benefits 1 for 2002–2021 (10%), and salaries and benefits 2 for 2002–2021 (4%). The amount for travel includes trips to Washington, D.C., Haiti, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Costa Rica, Peru, the United States, and Ecuador. Except for the travel to Washington D.C., no connection is demonstrated between those trips and this case before the Commission. They did not submit documentation to support the amount requested. Furthermore, regarding expenses incurred by the representatives after the presentation of the pleadings and motions brief, the Court observes that the representatives presented an explanatory table for travel expenses (tickets, lodging, and transportation expenses) and the amount paid for two expert opinions, attaching accounting records and numerous receipts. However, there are some inconsistencies between the receipts provided and the accounting records, as well as the travel expenses requested. In addition, the amount requested for the expert opinion of Omar Rojas Bolaños should have been claimed in the victims’ fund, as part of the needs requested for that purpose. Moreover, it is not possible to approve the expense for the psychosocial expert opinion from the Colombian Psychosocial Collective (COPSICO) because, as has been established, it was not submitted in accordance with the call for the hearing, so it was admitted as documentary evidence (supra para. 35). 175. Taking into consideration the amounts requested by the representatives, the arguments of the State, and the documentation provided on costs incurred, the Court sets, in equity, the payment of USD 50,000.00 for costs and expenses. This sum shall be paid directly to the Colombian Commission of Jurists. At the stage of monitoring compliance with this judgment, the Court will be able to order the state to reimburse the victims or their representatives for reasonable expenses incurred during that procedural stage. 189 J. Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund 176. As the October 18, 2022, Order of the President shows, it was decided on September 16, 2022, that the request to use the Legal Assistance Fund was admissible. Therefore, the financial support needed would be granted through the Fund to cover the expenses for presenting three statements, whether in person or by affidavit, at a future public hearing convened for this case. That order declared the following: 37. Accordingly, the Presidency orders that financial assistance from the Legal Assistance Fund be allocated to cover any expenses incurred for the presentation of three statements by affidavit, as the public hearing statements will be done by videoconference (infra paragraph 2 and operative 8). (bold in original) 38. Based on the above, the representatives shall inform the Court of the names of the three declarants whose reasonable expenses for drawing up statements from their Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina, supra, para. 79, and Case of Baraona Bray v. Chile, supra, para. 188. 188 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 Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay, supra, para. 134. 189 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 291, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru, supra, para. 173. 187 39