disbursement, and (3) with regard to the communication expenses (office inputs and expenses, photocopies), CEJIL had not provided the invoices that supported these supposed disbursements, and had not substantiated these supposed disbursement on the basis of its work of legal representation in this case. Hence, the State did not accept the said supposed disbursements. Consequently, it asked the Court to exclude them from its examination of the file, or to reject the representatives’ request to reimburse the said costs and expenses, because they lacked probative support. It rejected any other claim that the other three representatives, MUDHA, GARR and the Human Rights Clinic of Columbia University, might present because they had not submitted any claims to the Court. 495. The Court reiterates that, pursuant to its case law, 503 costs and expenses form part of the concept of reparation, because the activity deployed by the victims in order to obtain justice at both the national and the international level, entails disbursements that must be compensated when the international responsibility of the State is declared in a judgment. 496. The Court also reiterates that it is not sufficient to forward probative documents, but the parties must include arguments that relate the evidence to the fact that it is supposed to represent and, in the case of alleged financial disbursements, the items and their justification must be clearly established. 504 497. In this case, based on the arguments of the representatives concerning the request for costs and expenses and the evidence provided in this regard, the Court has verified that, in some cases, the amounts requested were not justified completely. Furthermore, the Court takes into account the State’s observations on the inconsistency between the amounts requested and the vouchers provided and, in other cases, the failure to provide vouchers, and lastly the State’s discrepancy with regard to the presentation of certain disbursements that it considered unjustified. Consequently, the Court will now examine separately the arguments of each organization that represents the victims. 498. In the case of CEJIL, having examined the vouchers presented as annexes to the motions and arguments brief and to the brief with final arguments, the Court has verified that, as the State indicated, there are vouchers that cannot be taken into account because the expenses have not been duly justified, 505 or did not arise from an evidentiary activity in this case, 506 or refer to expenses that were covered by the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund, 507 or their existence has simply not been proved owing to the absence of invoices to support them. 508 In addition, CEJIL presented a list of different expenses incurred and 503 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 79, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, para. 449. 504 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez v. Ecuador, para. 277, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, para. 451. 505 Invoices have been attached without any description of the activity or the date: fs. 3572, 3590, 3602, 3604 and 3599. 506 Namely: payment of round trip by taxi to meet with Tahira Vargas in 2013; the representatives subsequently withdrew her presentation as an expert witness (supra para. 112) (file of preliminary objections, merits and reparations, f. 3581) 507 Namely: Per diems for expert witnesses Carlos Quesada and Bridget Wooding (file of preliminary objections, merits and reparations, fs. 3423 to 3438). 508 Documents unsupported by invoices that mention expenses incurred by CEJIL in relation to travel to the Dominican Republic, accommodation, meals, and transportation in the Dominican Republic (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, fs. 3570, 3571, 3585, 3586, 3593, 3594, 3595, 3596, 3598, 3600, 3601, 3603, 153