313. The representatives indicated that “the victims have incurred numerous expenses in the steps taken before the domestic authorities to obtain the evidence for this case, as well as numerous expenses that have arisen during the proceedings before the [Inter-American Commission] and the Court, which include the disbursements made to attend the hearings on admissibility, the hearing on merits, expenses for mail, copying documents, travel, accommodation and meals, and the fees of expert witnesses.” They added that, owing to “the new structure of the proceedings before the Inter-American Court, the representatives of the victims have to cover all the travel costs and the payment of expert witnesses before the Inter-American Court, as well as all the expenses of the proceedings before the InterAmerican Commission, all of this signifies very elevated litigation costs, that differ from those incurred by the representatives of the victims in previous years when the [InterAmerican Commission] could provide financial support for the presentation of victims and expert witnesses.” They indicated that “[s]ince [they did] not have all the vouchers, [they asked] the Court that, in equity, it consider a reimbursement of US$50,000 for costs and expenses generated in the domestic and the international jurisdictions.” 314. The State indicated that the representatives’ claim “was in excess of the standards established by the Court, and therefore contested [this] request […] and ask[ed] the Court to establish [this item] based on the different cases in which Ecuador has been sentenced, which has never been more than US$20,000.00.” Considerations of the Court 315. As the Court has indicated on previous occasions, costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparations established in Article 63(1) of the American Convention.324 316. The Court reiterates that, in accordance with its case law,325 costs and expenses are part of the concept of reparation, because the activities deployed by the victims in order to obtain justice, at both the domestic and the international level, entail disbursements that must be compensated when the State’s international responsibility has been declared in a guilty verdict. With regard to their reimbursement, it is for the Court to make a prudent assessment of their scope, which includes the expenses generated before the authorities of the domestic jurisdiction, and also 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 may be made based on the equity principle and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided that the quantum is reasonable.326 317. In this regard, the Court has indicated that “the claims of the victims or their representatives concerning costs and expenses, and the evidence that substantiates these must be presented to the Court at the first procedural moment granted to them; that is, in the pleadings and motions brief, without prejudice to updating these claims subsequently, in accordance with the new costs and expenses incurred owing to the proceedings before this Court.”327 Furthermore, the Court reiterates that it is not sufficient to forward probative Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs, para. 79, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, para. 217. 324 325 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs, para. 79, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, para. 217. 326 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs, para. 82, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, para. 218. 327 Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs, para. 79, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, para. 173. 90