victims in this case could submit to the domestic authorities. Moreover, it notes that the State has not had the opportunity to refer to the said judicial decision or to present its corresponding observation. Consequently, the Court asks the State that, in the report requested in the fourth operative paragraph of this Order, it refer to the said decision of the Supreme Court of Justice and, specifically, to advise whether the decision represents an obstacle for the victims of the instant case to file claims under domestic law in relation to this case. The Court recalls that, since 2008, it has repeatedly ordered that “any disagreements concerning the determination of all the rights arising from the Judgment, and the compensation and reimbursement amounts relating to compliance with the provisions of the sixth and seventh operative paragraphs of the Judgment be decided in the domestic sphere, pursuant to the pertinent internal procedures, which include the possibility of having recourse to the competent authorities, including the domestic courts.”13 30. The Court appreciates the effort made by the State to make progress in complying with the Judgment, which is revealed by the payment or deposit of the amounts established in the agreements to almost all the victims of the instant case or their heirs. Pursuant to its authority under the Convention and its Rules of Procedure, the Court will continue the procedure of monitoring compliance with the Judgment in the terms established in the Order of October 30, 2008, and will conclude this case when the State has made all the corresponding payments and deposits, as established in the agreements and in the said Order. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of its authority to monitor compliance with its judgments under Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3) and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, 30 of its Statute and 31 and 69 of its Rules of Procedure, DECLARES THAT: 1. In accordance with considering paragraphs 14 and 21 of this Order, the State has complied with the third and fourth payment decided in the agreements in relation to Mario Pino, César De Obaldia and Luis Osorio, respectively, and forwarded the corresponding vouchers. 2. In accordance with considering paragraphs 15, 22 and 29 it will keep the procedure of monitoring compliance with the Judgment open in order to receive: (a) the voucher for the third payment to the heirs of the victim Ricardo Rivera; (b) the voucher for the fourth payment to the heir or heirs of the victim David Jaen Marin, and (c) the explanations or observations of Panama on the implications of the judgment handed down by the Supreme Court of Justice in relation to this case. AND DECIDES: 13 Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Order of the Court of October 30, 2008, second operative paragraph; Order of the Court of July 1, 2009, third operative paragraph; Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, third operative paragraph; Order of the Court of February 22, 2011, second operative paragraph, and Order of the Court of June 28, 2012, second operative paragraph. 7