7 The State is firm in maintaining criteria based on case law of the Supreme Court of Justice in contentious-administrative cases and has failed to follow the applicable labor scheme; the calculation and payment procedure is inconsistent with domestic laws in that payments were proposed without discrimination or specification as to the amount of each benefit and in disregard of the adversarial nature of procedural law. They also stated that in the benefit calculations there is no provision for workeremployer allowances, which should be updated pursuant to the salary accrued up to date and paid to the Social Security Fund, and which form part of the assets of the workers and their social rights, even though they are not collectable by the victims. Furthermore, they asserted that the distribution of the twenty millions unilaterally estimated by the State has not been duly carried out and that setting a term of 11 years to pay out all the victims (7 years as from the Judgment and 4 more years for full payment of the agreements) directly affects those workers who have never been reinstated and benefits those who have been employed with the State for more than the 11 years yet to be paid out. They alleged that “the victims who have not been employed with the State and who have been neither reinstated nor indemnified are only recognized salaries for one year and do not earn any income from the State.” 12. That the Inter-American Commission highlighted that there are important interpretation differences as to the compliance parameters set out in the Judgment by the Court. Moreover, it stated that the obligations deriving from the Judgment and subsequent payment orders have not been fully honoured and that it is paramount that the State explain how the calculation criteria and the new determination of unpaid salaries and further labor rights conform to domestic laws in force and the Judgment of the Court, and make specifications as to “the controversy under current and applicable domestic law regarding the unpaid salaries calculation and the State proposal exclusion criteria for basic labor rights.” It considered it essential to know the details concerning the adoption of effective measures to guarantee the execution of the reparations ordered by the Court, in good faith, forthwith and taking into account the particular situation of each victim. 13. That the Court observes that the State submitted information on the compliance with the obligations deriving from the Judgment, in particular, as to: a) the payments made; b) the amount that, in its opinion, each victim should still collect; c) the information on the payment proposal regarding the twenty million balboas; d) the amount to be collected by each victim or successor; and e) the criteria used to determine such amounts. 14. That the parties expressed significant discrepancies concerning the amounts due and the legal criteria on which the calculations made by the State were based. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a great number of victims signed the reparation agreements proposed by the State; therefore, the Court will address, firstly, said agreements and their effects on the signatory victims or successors and, secondly, the situation of non-signatory persons or those who withdrew their consent after signing. * * *