United States dollars) They indicated that due to the passage of time there is no proof of payment; b) Regarding Mr. Valenzuela: the expenses incurred for the travel: (i) to the headquarters of the jurisdictional and administrative authorities, and (ii) to the hearing before the Inter-American Commission. Proof of payment was not kept. They requested the amount of USD 5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars). Regarding Mr. Díaz Alvarado and Ms. Rodríguez Ricse: they requested, for the representation of each one, the sum of USD 30,000.00 (thirty thousand United States dollars), for the hiring of professional services, travel and tickets to the Inter-American Commission. c) 227. In this regard, in its answer, the State requested that the request not be granted. Regarding each victim, it stated: a) Regarding Mr. Cuya: the representatives made generic statements indicating expenses for transportation, courier service, photocopying, legal advice for his attendance at the Commission, food and other costs, of which they did not provide further details. Nor if Mr. Cuya's expenses to travel to the Commission's headquarters to present the petition, attend hearings and interviews, were directly related to his case, and it notes different inconsistencies, among them, regarding the air tickets provided and the statement Sworn submitted regarding the 2005 ticket, which does not correspond to proof of payment. In addition, they indicated that they did not have proof of each of the alleged expenses. Lastly, it indicated that Mr. Cuya, as a lawyer, was in charge of handling the internal proceedings and was also in charge of processing the petition that he presented to the Commission. It requested that the requested amount not be granted. b) Regarding Mr. Valenzuela: he did not provide receipts for the expenses incurred. He did not explain the detail of the cost involved in judicial proceedings made at the domestic level, the procedure at the international level, the transfers to the jurisdictional and administrative headquarters, as well as hearings arranged by the Commission. Mr. Valenzuela did not evidence all of the requested expenses, so his payment is not appropriate. c) Regarding Mr. Díaz Alvarado and Ms. Rodríguez Ricse: the expenses were not duly evidenced nor were receipts provided, for which reason it opposed the payment of the requested amount. 228. The Court reiterates that, according to its case law, 188 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 level, implies disbursements that must be compensated when the international responsibility of the State is declared by means of a condemnatory judgement. Regarding the reimbursement of costs and expenses, it is for the Court to make a prudent assessment of their scope, which includes the expenses arising 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 made be made based on the principle of equity and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided their quantum is reasonable 229. This Court has indicated that “the claims of the victims or their representatives regarding costs and expenses, and the evidence that supports them, must be presented to the Court at the first procedural moment that they are granted, that is, in the brief of motions and pleadings, 188 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Repairs and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, paras. 79 and 82, and Case of Garzón Guzmán v. Ecuador, supra, para. 138. 57