7 the Tribunal deems convenient to recall what it indicated in the last Order,8 and repeat that the scope and content of the agreements as regards the items paid for is stated on the instrument signed by such persons, and the criteria used by the State were presented in its report, which was referred to the legal representatives and a summary of which appears in the Order of October 30, 2008. Furthermore, pursuant to the agreements signed by such persons: (a) “the amount to be paid to each signatory party “as full reparation for the violations established by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Judgment of February 2, 2001 […]’ (first clause);” (b) “that the victim or, in turn, the successor declares that he/she "understands and consents […] that the sum [detailed in the first clause] equals the total amount due to [him/her] by THE STATE under the Judgment […]” and that “payment thereof entails full reparation of the damage caused by the violations attributed to the STATE’ (second clause)” (c) “that each signatory party agrees that the payment completes “in full the rights referred to in the Judgment, [corresponding to] unpaid salaries and further labor rights under Panamanian laws; moral damage, legal costs and expenses and any other amount deriving from the case’ (third clause),” and (d) “the signatory states that ‘all of [his/her] rights are fully satisfied and [he/she] has no further claims whatsoever, either present or future, with regard to the rights acknowledged in the Judgment’ (fifth clause).” 18. In addition, the Court recalls that “any discrepancy regarding the determination of all the rights arising from the Judgment and the amounts of the compensations and reimbursements with regard to the compliance with operative paragraphs No. 6 and 7 of the Judgment must be settled by on the domestic sphere pursuant to the applicable domestic procedures, which involves the possibility of resorting to the domestic authorities including the domestic courts.”9 19. Furthermore, the Court also recalls that it will keep open the procedure to monitor compliance with the Judgment in order to receive: a) the receipts of payment to the victims or successors who signed the agreements and b) the receipts of the bank deposits to those persons who did not sign the agreements or who withdrew their consent after signing them.10 20. The Court values the effort made by the State to make headway in complying with the Judgment. In accordance with powers conferred upon it under the convention and its rules of procedure, the Court will continue monitoring compliance with the Judgment pursuant to the terms set forth in its Order of October 30, 2008, and shall deem this case closed once the State has paid in full the amounts and made all deposits pursuant to the provisions of the agreements and the Order already mentioned. 8 See Case of Baena Ricardo et al V. Panama, Supra note 6, Considering clause sixteen. 9 Case of Baena Ricardo et al V. Panama, supra note 7. Considering clause fourteen and Case of Baena Ricardo et al V. Panama, supra note 6, Operative paragraph third. 10 See Case of Baena Ricardo et al V. Panama, supra note 7. Operative paragraph four and Case of Baena Ricardo et al V. Panama, supra note 6, Operative paragraph four.