persons represented by [said organization].” Furthermore, CEJIL attached a brief signed by some of its clients, in which they expressed their disagreement with the settlement agreements “that are being executed” and advised that they have instituted domestic proceedings to contest them and to demand, among other things, “the refund of the amounts deducted for income tax.” Finally, in said attachment, the victims pointed out that if the Court were to declare that the State had fully complied with the Judgment, as requested by the State, this would be used “by the [Panamanian] courts to [dismiss] their claims lodged before the [domestic] courts”. 10. The Organización de Trabajadores Víctimas did not present any observations to the State’s report regarding the fourth payment made by Panama, but stated that it opposed the agreements and their approval by the Court. In addition, it mentioned that certain national authorities had not responded to its requests for information and to the claims filed at the domestic level and expressed its disagreement, among other things, with the fact that the Court had ordered the victims to file claims in the domestic courts. Finally, it expressed concern about the impact that the possible conclusion of the procedure to monitor compliance might have on the domestic proceedings. 11. The Inter-American Commission reiterated that, during the procedure for monitoring compliance, it had continued to receive observations from various groups of victims who objected to the settlement agreements submitted by the State and alleged that there were problems regarding the amounts of the payments made by Panama. Likewise, the Commission noted that the State “presented copies of the receipts for the payments made to the victims or heirs who signed the agreement [...]". In addition, it indicated that “it [had] no observations to make” regarding the payments issued. Finally, the Commission attached a document forwarded by a group of victims. 12. Regarding the fourth and final payment, the Court confirms that, according to the receipts forwarded, of the 268 victims or heirs who signed the agreement, 263 received the cheque corresponding to the fourth payment. Furthermore, the Court notes that neither the representatives nor the Commission mentioned the beneficiary who, according to the State, “due to [an] involuntary error received the full amount of his entitlement in the previous payments,” and therefore would not be entitled to the fourth payment. Therefore, this Court considers that the fourth payment has been fulfilled in respect of this last beneficiary. 13. Likewise, regarding various specific situations reported by Panama (supra Considering paragraph 8), the Court notes the following points. With respect to the beneficiary who, according to the State, resides in Brazil and therefore would not have withdrawn the cheque corresponding to the fourth payment, neither the representatives nor the Commission commented on this issue. Consequently, this Court awaits the forwarding of the signed cheque or else of the bank deposit made in favor of that person. 14. In addition, the Court notes that one of the victims died on August 16, 2011, that is to say, before the fourth payment was made, and therefore this payment is still pending delivery to his heir or heirs. Neither the representatives nor the Commission made specific reference to that victim. Based on the foregoing, this Court awaits the forwarding of the cheque signed by the heir or heirs or else the bank deposit or guarantee certificate issued in his or their favor. 4