of Luis Osorio and indicated that it “was waiting for the ruling on the heir[s of the deceased victim, David Jaen Marin], in order to deliver [his fourth payment].” 18. The Center for Justice and International Law, representative of these three victims, indicated that “the victims [it] represents have informed [it] that they have no objection concerning the payment vouchers” and the supporting documents provided by the State in relation to the fourth payment in favor of the said three victims. 19. The Organización de Trabajadores Víctimas did not submit any specific observations regarding the information provided by the State, but merely indicated its disagreement and dissatisfaction with, among other aspects, the agreements and their endorsement by the Court. In addition, it indicated that certain domestic authorities had failed to respond to their requests for information and claims in the domestic sphere. 20. The Inter-American Commission took note of the information provided by the parties and their observations without making any specific comments in this regard. 21. First, as required in its Order of June 2012, this Court notes that the State has delivered the fourth payment to the victim who resides in Brazil, César De Obaldia, and has also provided the voucher for the fourth payment made to Luis Osorio. Consequently, the Court considers that the State has complied with the payment of the last disbursement established in the agreements and with forwarding the corresponding vouchers in relation to these two victims. 22. Second, the Court takes note that the ruling on the heirs of David Jaen Marin remains pending, and therefore the State has not yet delivered the fourth payments in his favor to his heirs. The representatives and the Commission made no specific mention of this victim. Accordingly, the Court awaits the reception of the check signed by the respective heir or heirs or the voucher for the bank deposit or deposit certificate in their favor. c) Other aspects related to compliance with the Judgment 23. The Court observes that, in its two briefs, the State stressed that the victims Luis Batista and Andrés Bermúdez have refused to receive the corresponding payments, despite the efforts made by the State to deliver them, and that the said payments have therefore been deposited as guarantee certificates in the Banco Nacional de Panamá. Copies of the deposits were provided. The representatives did not submit any specific observations in this regard, and the Commission indicated that it was waiting for the vouchers of the guarantee certificates mentioned by the State, which were again provided by the State with its brief of October 31, 2012. 24. In this regard, the Court recalls that, in its Order of June 2012, the Court noted that the said guarantee certificates had been deposited in the Banco Nacional de Panamá, and therefore considered that the State had complied with its obligation to deposit the amounts corresponding to the fourth payments for these victims in a bank account.9 Consequently, the Court notes that the said obligation is no longer the object of this procedure of monitoring compliance with judgment. 25. Furthermore the Court notes that CEJIL attached as an annex to its brief with observations, without including any legal considerations or analysis, a brief signed by some of the persons it represents in which they indicated their “disagreement with the payment 9 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Order of the Court of June 28, 2012, twenty-first considering paragraph. 5