implementation of the Judgment, [they] consider[ed] that the sum of USD $50,000 [was] appropriate.” 269. For its part, the State indicated that “[the] claim [of the representatives] exceeds the standards established by the Court, for which reason it challenge [d] the representatives’ request […] and ask[ed] the Court [to] set the amount, based on the documentation, and, if this [was] not possible, to conduct an analysis of cases” In this regard, the State pointed out “that [in] the case law of the [I]nter-American [S]ystem such high sums of money for costs and expenses have not been paid, without the necessary evidence” and concluded by asking “[the Inter-American Court] to set, in equity, as a maximum amount for costs and expenses, the sum of 10,000 dollars of the United States of America.” Considerations of the Court 270. As the Court has already stated on previous occasions, costs and expenses are included within the concept of reparation established in Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 295 271. The Court reiterates that, according to its case law, 296 costs and expenses form part of the concept of reparation, inasmuch as the activities undertaken by the victims in order to obtain justice, both at the national and the international level, entail outlays that must be compensated when the State’s international responsibility is declared in a conviction. As to their reimbursement, the Court must prudently assess their scope, which includes expenses incurred before domestic authorities as well as those arising from proceedings before the Inter-American system, taking into account the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of international human rights jurisdiction. This assessment may be based on the principle of equity, taking into account the expenses stated by the parties, providing that their quantum is reasonable. 297 272. The Court has indicated that the claims of victims or their representatives for costs and expenses, and the evidence supporting these, must be submitted to the Court at the first procedural opportunity, that is, in the brief of pleadings and motions, without prejudice to the fact that such claims may later be updated, as new costs and expenses may be incurred during the proceedings before this Court.” 298 273. In this case, the Court notes that in the attachments to their final arguments, the representatives included information related to monetary outlays and actions prior to the presentation of the brief of pleadings, motions and evidence. As to the evidence regarding the expenditures made and forwarded as attachments to the representatives’ brief of final arguments, the Court finds that the vouchers received correspond to expenses for the the return, processing and withdrawal of checks, commissions for bank transfers, sworn statements, stationery expenses, dispatch of documents, fees for expert opinions, travel and accommodation expenses to attend the public hearing at the seat of the Inter-American Commission, and also to attend the hearing before the Court in San José, Costa Rica, both of the representatives of the victims and of the deponents. Final written arguments of the representatives (Merits file, volume IV, pages 1925 a 2051). 295 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs, para. 79, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, para. 217. 296 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs, para. 79, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, para. 217. 297 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs, para. 82, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, para. 218. 298 Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs, para. 79, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, para. 173. 77