7 14. That, with regard to the eight victims or successors who have not signed the agreements (operative paragraphs No. 3 and 4 (b) of the Order of October 30, 2008), even though the State furnished the Tribunal with a copy of the checks issued to them, it failed to submit a copy of the receipts evidencing the bank deposits of such amounts. The InterAmerican Court notes that section 7 of the agreements provides, with regard to the nonsignatory victims, that the State shall consign the amounts in specified bank accounts and that it shall disburse such amounts once the victims or their successors sign the agreement. Based on that, in approving the agreements, the Inter-American Court provided that “the State should consign in separate bank accounts the amounts due to them and undertake the obligation to make payments once the victim or successor has signed the agreement at its sole option, or if a judicial authority so orders in the terms set out thereby” (Considering clause No. 27 of the Order of October 30, 2008). Given that it was the State itself who proposed the modality in the agreements it subjected to the Court’s approval and that such modality was admitted by the Inter-American Court, the State must inform on the deposit of the checks issued for these eight victims in specific accounts, including the respective receipts pursuant to the procedure proposed by the State and approved by the Court through its Order of October 30, 2008. * * * 15. Furthermore, the Court observes that some victims requested for information and commenced proceedings before various authorities and courts in Panama, and that there is no indication in the record of the case that their claims were satisfied. The Court repeats (supra Having Seen clause No. 2) that any disputes and the claims of the victims or their successors shall be finally settled by the domestic authorities pursuant to their domestic law, in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Judgment and in the Order of October 30, 2008. 16. That, as regards the brief attached by CEJIL to its observations without making any legal consideration or assessment (supra Considering clause No. 9 in fine), in which some persons represented by the organization raised challenges to the State’s information about the payment items and the proceedings carried out by Panama, the Tribunal notes that such persons have signed the agreements. The scope and content of the agreements as regards the items paid for is stated on the instrument signed by such persons, and the criteria used by the State were presented in its report, which was referred to the legal representatives and a summary of which appears in the Order of October 30, 2008. Pursuant to the agreements signed by such persons: (a) “the amount to be paid to each signatory party “as full reparation for the violations established by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Judgment of February 2, 2001 […].’ (first clause)”;