5 each of the points ordered is fundamental for evaluating the status of compliance with the Judgment.5 * * * 8. That, with regard to the payment to the signatory victims or successors and the submission of the payment receipts (operative paragraphs 1 and 4 (a) of the Order of October 30, 2008), the State initially informed that it had made the first of the four annual payments for 2008, pursuant to the provisions of the agreements which were approved by the Court (supra Having Seen clause No. 2). The total amount to be paid to the 270 victims or their successors in this first disbursement was six million, nine hundred and thirty-two thousand, thirteen balboas and thirteen cents (PAB 6,932,013.13), out of which 252 victims received the agreed payments, totaling six million, three hundred and seventy-five thousand, one hundred and thirty-six balboas and forty-five cents (PAB 6,375,136.45). Thus, payment was due to eighteen victims or successors for a total amount of five hundred and fifty-six thousand, eight hundred and seventy-six balboas with sixty-eight cents (PAB 556,876.68). Thereafter, the State informed and submitted documents evidencing payment to other ten persons; it pointed out that only eight victims or successors had yet to sign the agreements and withdraw the checks, and attached copies of the checks for the nonsignatories. Finally, it informed that two persons, signatories to the agreements, had failed to withdraw their checks. 9. That CEJIL held that: (i) after a thorough review of the documents submitted by the State, it verified that almost all of the checks for the first payment were delivered, pursuant to the agreements between signatory victims and the States; (ii) the amount of the payments corresponded with the payment distribution schedule attached to the State’s report; (iii) notwithstanding the foregoing, one receipt had no signature on it, so there was no proof of whether the amount stated on the check had been effectively received; (iv) in three cases, the names on the checks do not correspond with the names of the receivers as per their ID card, which prevents determining whether those victims effectively received the checks; and (v) in another case, the number on an ID card, a copy of which was included with the signed agreements and the check, differs from the ID number stated on the payment distribution schedule submitted by the State. They requested the Court that it request Panama to clarify the above-mentioned issues and that it continue to monitor the implementation of the measures imposed on the State in the Order of October 30, 2008. Finally, CEJIL attached “the full observations to the State’s report made by a group of [its] clients”, in which such persons raised certain challenges on the State’s report and the scope and content of the payments, and made requests to the Court. 5 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, Considering clause No. 7; Case of Cantoral-Huaminí and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 7; and Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 28, 2009, Considering clause No. 7.