103 $6,178.00 for expenses related to attendance at the public hearing of the case. They requested that said amounts be reimbursed directly by the State to the representatives. 346. The State indicated that it considers unacceptable the request by CEJIL and the Asociación Paz y Esperanza for reimbursement of costs and expenses without the presentation of receipts and other documents that justify their validity. It also pointed out that the expenses requested by the Paz y Esperanza organization include the amounts disbursed during the domestic criminal proceedings, which would not be considered as part of the costs and expenses within the international proceeding. In this regard, it recalled that between 1995 and 2005 the domestic criminal proceeding was paralyzed, so it would not be correct to say that there has been a 22-year litigation, as if it had been continuous and uninterrupted. Finally, it noted that Paz y Esperanza “has included an item of operational expenditure related to the ‘judicialization’ of human rights, legal defense, dissemination of emblematic cases and others,” without explaining how those amounts are related to this case. Specifically, it objected to the travel expenses related to Miryam Rebeca Rivera Holguín’s attendance at the public hearing in this case, as well as to the additional night spent by Zenón Cirilo Osnayo Tunque in Costa Rica derived from his participation in the public hearing, considering that it was not necessary, indispensable or reasonable. It also presented detailed observations regarding the vouchers submitted by the representatives and the conversion of the expenses paid in soles and colones into dollars. Furthermore, it recalled that the expenses must be directly related to the case and the proceeding itself, excluding any amounts that do not correspond and/or are not strictly linked to the specific case. Considerations of the Court 347. The Court reiterates that, based on its case law, costs and expenses form part of the concept of reparation, because the activities carried out by the victims in order to obtain justice, at both the national and the international level, imply expenditures that must be compensated when the international responsibility of the State is declared in a judgment. Regarding the reimbursement of costs and expenses, it is for the Court to prudently assess their scope, including the expenses generated before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction and those incurred during 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 may be made based on the equity principle and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided that their quantum is reasonable. 381 The Court also reiterates that it is not sufficient merely to forward probative documents; rather, the parties are required to include arguments that relate the evidence to the facts that they represent and, in the case of alleged financial disbursements, clearly specify the items and their justification. 382 348. Regarding the evidence related to the financial disbursements made, the Court confirms the following: a) some payment vouchers show items of expenditure that are not clearly and precisely related to the present case; b) some vouchers do not refer to a specific item of expenditure, and c) some payment receipts are illegible, have items crossed out, or else do not show the date, the item of expenditure or the financial amount intended to be proved. Such items have been fairly deducted from the calculation established by this Court. On the other hand, some receipts refer to payment for accommodation, food and transportation expenses of Miryam Rebeca Rivera Holguín to attend the public hearing in this case, without the representatives having presented any argument regarding the reasons for her attendance, bearing in mind that her expert opinion was received by affidavit. Regarding the additional day for Mr. Zenón Cirilo Osnayo Tunque to attend the hearing before the Court, the representatives did not explain why it was necessary to incur such expenses beyond those covered by the Victims’ Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina, supra, para. 82, and Case of Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 200. 382 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra, para. 275, and Case of Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 200. 381