256. The State asked the Court not to order the State for procedural expenses and costs, because the representatives’ request is outside the established parameters.199 It also stated that when a civil society organization receives funding from any type of cooperation to process a case before the Inter-American System, in reality it is not incurring any type of expenses or costs, since the funds have been granted with the condition that are used for this purpose, thus, there is a lack of active legitimacy of the representative to demand the reimbursement of the amounts disbursed, since their assets was never damaged. It argued that receiving funds to represent the victims before the Inter-American System and then claiming their return is an unfair attitude that undermines the true meaning of reparations for human rights violations and supposes a decrease in the funds that can be used by the State to invest in other types of reparations. 257. The Court reiterates that, in accordance with its case law,200 the costs and expenses are part of the concept of reparation, since the activity carried out by the victims in order to obtain justice, both at the national and international levels, implies expenses that must be compensated when the international responsibility of the State is declared through a conviction. Regarding the reimbursement of costs and expenses, it is up to the Court to prudently assess its scope, which includes the expenses generated before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, as well as those generated in 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 can be made based on the principle of equity and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided that their amount is reasonable. 201 In consideration of the State’s indications regarding the fact that the representatives allegation is outside the parameters that have been established in relation to the accreditation of the additional sum requested by the representatives for costs and expenses, this Court has verified that indeed some of the expenses indicated are not subject to reimbursement, nor have the receipts been presented. 258. In consideration of the above, the Court sets, in fairness, the amount of USD$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) for expenses incurred in processing the proceedings before the inter-American human rights system. Said amount must be delivered, within a period of one year from the notification of this judgment, in the following manner: to the Institute of Comparative Studies in Criminal Sciences of Guatemala the sum of USD$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) and to the Institute of Public Criminal Defense the sum of USD$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars). In the stage of monitoring compliance with this judgment, the Court may order the State to reimburse the victims or their representatives for reasonable expenses incurred in said procedural stage. H. Access to the victims’ legal assistance fund. 259. In this case the necessary financial assistance was granted, charged against said fund, to cover the travel, transfer, lodging and per diem expenses necessary for Florinda López de López and Olga Patricia Roldán Monterroso and Edgardo Enríquez Cabrera 202 to appear before the Court to give their statement at the public hearing of this case. 199 In this regard, it indicated that the representatives requested a reimbursement for the trip of a person to San José, Costa Rica to carry out an internship in "CEJIL" for US$1,000.04, it is not possible for recognition of this expense to be considered as a measure of reparation. 200 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 Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 84. 201 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 82, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 84. 202 Enríquez Cabrera did not appear at the public hearing. 61