87 representatives do not relate to the expenditures of the processing of the matter before the Inter-American System of Human Rights, such as the receipts that indicate the purchase of colored pencils, brushes and water colors, table games, princess balls, and clothes, and a receipt of carwash and car vacuum […], without considering that many of these expenditures are backed up by the receipts of the organization Tlachinollan that does not have a fiscal registry or other type of tax control.” 284. Regarding reimbursement of costs and expenses, the Court must prudently assess its scope, which includes the expenses incurred before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, as well as those incurred during the proceedings before the InterAmerican 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 the principle of equity and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided that the quantum is reasonable.298 285. The Court has indicated that “the claims of the victims or their representatives concerning costs and expenses, and the evidence to support them, must be submitted to the Court at the first procedural occasion granted to them, namely, in the brief of pleadings and motions; notwithstanding the possibility that these claims may be updated subsequently, in keeping with the new costs and expenses that may have been incurred as a result of the proceedings before this Court.”299 Furthermore, the Court reiterates that it is not sufficient that the parties merely submit probative documents; rather they are required to submit arguments that connect 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 explained.300 With their final arguments, the representatives included additional expenses presumably incurred by “Tlachinollan” prior to the presentation of the application that were not included in the brief on pleadings and motions. The representatives indicated that this omission was due to a “human error.” Owing to its time-barred presentation, the Court will not consider said expenses when determining the amount that it will establish as costs and expenses. Finally, the Court observes that a significant number of expenditures reported by the representatives have no supporting documentation or the receipts sent have no relationship with expenses related to this case. 286. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the Court determines that the representatives incurred various expenses before the Court in relation to fees, evidence collection, transportation costs, communication services, among others, in the processing at the domestic and international forums of the present case. Based on the abovementioned, the Court determines, in equity, that the State must deliver the sum of US$14,000.00 (fourteen thousand dollars of the United States of America), US$10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars of the United States of America), and US$1,000.00 (one thousand dollars of the United States of America), in favor of CEJIL, Tlachinollan, and Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, respectively, for costs and expenses. In the monitoring of compliance procedures of the present Judgment, the Court may provide the reimbursement on behalf of the State to the victims or their representatives for reasonable expenses that have been duly proven. iv)Method of compliance with the ordered payments 287. The State must pay the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and the reimbursement of costs and expenses established in this Judgment directly to 298 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria, supra note 220, para. 82; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 285, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 25, para. 258. 299 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. 275; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 27, para. 302, and Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 284. 300 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez, supra note 299, para. 277; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 27, para. 301, and Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 284.