4 the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.4 7. The States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction have the duty to comply with the obligations established by the Court. This obligation includes the State’s duty to inform the Court about the measures it has taken to comply with the rulings of the Court in its decisions. The State’s prompt observance of its obligation to inform the Court about how it is complying with each of the aspects ordered by the Court is fundamental for evaluating the status of compliance with the judgment as a whole.5 a) Regarding the payment to the victims or heirs who signed the agreements and the forwarding of the corresponding receipts 8. Regarding the payment to the victims or heirs who signed the agreements and the forwarding of the corresponding receipts (first and fifth operative paragraphs of the Orders of October 30, 2008, July 1, 2009, and May 28, 2010), the State forwarded copy of the cheques corresponding to the third payment (supra sixth having seen paragraph). In addition, Panama advised that: (a) “of all the 270 former workers and heirs who benefited from [the] judgment, 264 workers received the payment between September and December [2010]”; (b) two of the victims who had not signed the agreement signed it; and the State presented a copy of the signed agreements, proof of the endorsement and exchange of their guarantee certificates corresponding to the first and second payments, and copy of the cheques corresponding to the third payment; (c) currently, only three of the victims have not signed the settlement; therefore, the amounts of the three payments made by the State “have been deposited in guarantee certificates in the Banco Nacional de Panama”; (d) the 17 heirs of the victims who were waiting for the results of the inheritance procedures at the domestic level have received the amounts corresponding to the three payments made to date, and (e) two heirs of the victims are awaiting the declaration of heirs, so that “[t]he cheques [corresponding to the third payment] have not been withdrawn.” 9. CEJIL advised that “according [to] information received from the victims, the cheques have been delivered or the deposits made in guarantee certificates for the third payment with regard to all the persons represented by CEJIL,” except for one victim “who is the only person represented by CEJIL who has not withdrawn the money” even though “the State has proceeded to deposit it in guarantee certificates”. 10. The Organización de Trabajadores Víctimas did not present its observations on the State report regarding the third payment made by Panama directly. However, in different briefs, it stated that it opposed the agreements and their approval by the Court, and the payments that are being made. Among other observations, they referred to the different legal actions and claims that have been filed at the domestic level. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 2, seventh considering paragraph, and Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 1, fifth considering paragraph. 5 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, seventh considering paragraph; Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2010, seventh considering paragraph, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 2, eighth considering paragraph.