5 11. The Inter-American Commission summarized various requests it had received from some of the victims in this case and added that “during the procedure of monitoring compliance […it] had received observations from various groups of victims who contested the settlement agreement submitted by the State.” Furthermore, with regard to the purpose of monitoring compliance in the case, it indicated “that [the purpose was] merely for the presentation of the payment receipts, […] that it [did] not have information regarding possible rapprochements to reach an agreement with the victims who had not signed the settlement and that, regarding the payments made, it ha[d] no observations to make.” 12. The Court recalls that, in the Order of May 28, 2010,6 it noted that, of the 270 victims in the case, 266 of them or their heirs had signed the agreements, and 265 of them had withdrawn the cheques corresponding to the first payment. Therefore, Panama still needed to confirm whether the remaining five persons had withdrawn their cheques. Regarding this first payment, from the information and documentation presented by the parties, the Court observes that two of these five persons had withdrawn the amount that corresponded to them, because they are victims who had not signed the agreement originally and then signed it over the last year and proceeded to exchange the guarantee certificates issued in their name for the first payment. The State furnished a copy of the signed agreements and of the endorsement of the said guarantee certificates. Consequently, the Court notes that, of the 270 victims in this case, 268 of them or their heirs have signed the agreements and, of these, 267 victims have withdrawn the cheques corresponding to the first payment. 13. Regarding the second payment made by Panama, the Court recalls that, in the Order of May 28, 2010,7 it noted that 262 of the 266 victims or heirs who had signed the agreement had received their cheques. Also, the Court was awaiting further information from the State regarding: (a) the victim who had signed the agreement and who did not withdraw the cheques for the first and second payment, and in favor of whom two guarantee certificates were issued; and (b) those deceased victims whose payments were not made because the declaration of their heirs was pending. Regarding the second payment, based on the information and documentation provided by the parties, the Court observes that, one victim who signed the agreement has still not exchanged either of the two guarantee certificates issued in his/her favor for the first and second payment. It also observes that two victims who had not signed the agreement originally, signed it during the past year and the guarantee certificates corresponding to the first and second payments have been endorsed in their favor (supra twelfth considering paragraph). In addition, it has verified that, in the cases of deceased victims in which the declaration of their heirs was pending, the heirs have been determined and the corresponding payments made. Consequently, the Court notes that, of the 270 victims in this case, 268 of them or their heirs have signed the agreements, and 267 of them have withdrawn the cheques corresponding to the second payment. 14. Regarding the third of the four payments that the State must make, from the documentation and information forwarded by the parties, the Court notes that, to date, one of the victims who signed the agreement has still not withdrawn any of the three 6 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, twelfth considering paragraph. 7 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra note 6, thirteenth and fourteenth considering paragraphs.