41 para. 7). 125. The State argued that it “considers the request of the […] representatives regarding attorney fees unacceptable since there is no evidence that they have worked on the case or advised the victims […] before the Court.” It added that the expenses and costs requested correspond to a period of the case before the Commission, which had already been paid by the State, and it stated that the number of professionals indicated was disproportionate. Regarding the administrative expenses requested by the representatives, the State indicated that it opposed those invoices dated prior to the notification of the application. Finally, with regard to the hearing expenses it opposed payment of an airplane ticket and the expenses per diem regarding one of the persons the representatives had indicated, stating that “it was not aware that said person works with the Center for Legal Action in Human Rights –CALDH–.” 126. The Court has stated that the costs and expenses are included within the concept of reparation (supra para. 122), since the activities carried out by the victims in order to obtain justice, both nationally and internationally, implies expenses that must be compensated when the State’s international responsibility is declared in a conviction. Regarding their reimbursement, it corresponds to the Tribunal to prudently assess their scope, which includes the expenses generated throughout the proceedings 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 can be made based on equity and taking into account the expenses mentioned by the parties, as long as their quantum is reasonable.116 127. In the present case, upon forwarding their brief of pleadings and motions (supra para. 4), the representatives did not present the corresponding receipts for payment of costs and expenses in which the next of kin of María and Josefa Tiu Tojín had allegedly incurred. The representatives limited themselves to indicating that “they could not determine or prove the amounts that may be necessary with regard to the processing of the case […], reason for which these amounts, as well as the receipts for the same may be delivered to the Court in the due procedural time.” In this regard, the Tribunal considers that the claims of the victims or their representatives in the matter of costs and expenses and the evidence to support them must be presented to the Court in the first procedural moment granted to them,117 that is, in the brief of pleadings and motions, without detriment to the possibility of updating said claims at a later time, pursuant with the new costs and expenses in which they may have incurred during the proceedings before this Court. 128. La Court warns that the claims regarding costs and expenses presented by the representatives refer only to the processing of the present case before this 116 Cfr. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 82; Case of Apitz Barbera et al (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra note 21, para. 257; and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 17, para. 192. 117 Cfr. Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala, supra note 21, para. 22; Case of Apitz Barbera et al (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra note 21, para. 258; and Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, supra note 21, para. 75.