42 represented, and that when dealing with economic outlays, the items and justification of the same must be clearly established.”174 139. Regarding the reimbursement of costs and expenses, the Tribunal has indicated that it must carefully assess their scope, which includes the expenses generated before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, as well as those generated throughout the course of the process before the Inter-American 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 principle of equity and taking into account the expenses stated by the parties, provided that their quantum is reasonable.175 140. The Court observes that the representatives did not present specific arguments to justify the amounts of fees and expenses incurred before the domestic and Inter-American instances; however, they forwarded numerous receipts for the fees for which they included details of the actions or diligences offered within the professional services, as well as those related to the expenses incurred for activities such as messenger services, transportation, photocopies, lodging, food, notary expenses, official recordings, and legalizations, among others. On its part, even though the State mentioned its disagreement with the amount requested by the representatives, it did not specifically object to the receipts presented. In consideration of the aforementioned, this Tribunal understands that it is logical to assume that in fact the victim has incurred in certain expenses both in the domestic realm and at an international level before the Inter-American Commission and the Court, as a consequence of the processing of the present case. 141. Based on the aforementioned, and making an appropriate assessment of the specific scope of the costs, taking into account not only the proof of the latter and the circumstances of the specific case, but also the nature of the international jurisdiction for the protection of human rights, the Tribunal considers in equity that the State must reimburse the amount of US$ 50,000.00 (fifty thousand dollars of the United States of America) to Mrs. María Salvador Chiriboga, who will pass on the corresponding amounts to her representatives, in order to compensate the costs and expenses incurred before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, as well as those generated throughout the proceedings before the Inter-American System. The State must make the payment of costs and expenses within a one-year term, computed as of the notification of the present Judgment. In the procedure of monitoring compliance with the present Judgment, the Tribunal may order the reimbursement by the State to the victims or their representatives of all reasonable expenses duly proven.176 F) MODALITY OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE PAYMENTS ORDERED 142. The payment of the just compensation, as well as the compensations for pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage, the wrongfully collected amount for taxes and fines for plots without constructions and its correspondent interest, as well as the reimbursement of costs and expenses will be delivered directly to María Salvador Chiriboga. If she were to pass away before the corresponding compensation is rendered, it will be delivered to her 174 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez V. Ecuador, supra note 124, para. 277; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010, Series C No. 216, para. 285, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) V. Brazil, supra note 8, para. 317. 175 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria V. Argentina. Reparations and Costs, supra note 172, para. 82; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) V. Brazil, supra note 8, para. 316, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México, supra note 8, para. 266. 176 Cf. Case of Xámok Kásek Indigenous Community V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010 Series C No. 214, para. 331; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerilha do Araguaia”) V. Brazil, supra note 8, para. 318, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México, supra note 8, para. 267.