6 the State issued two guarantee certificates in his favor; b) the State issued a check in favor of two deceased victims but it is waiting for the declaration of heirs and, c) and one of the victims recently died for the State has not issued the check and is waiting for the heirs to appear. 14. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that, so far, from the 270 victims of the case, 266 persons have signed the agreements, 265 persons have received the first of the four payments and 262 have received the second of the four payments. In relation to the foregoing, the Tribunal considers necessary that in its next report Panama refers to the situation of the successors before mentioned (supra Considering clause 13) and specifies whether such persons have effectively received the second payment. Moreover, the State must present updated information in relation to the victim who signed the agreement but has still not withdrawn any of the two checks drawn in his favor. * * * 15. In relation to the four victims or successors who have not signed the agreements (operative paragraphs two and five of the Orders of October 30, 2008, and July 1, 2009), even though the State furnished the Tribunal with a copy of the guarantee certificates issued to them for the first two payments, it failed to submit a copy of the receipts evidencing the bank deposits of such amounts. 16. The Inter-American Court recalls that section 7 of the agreements provides, with regard to the non-signatory victims, that the State shall deposit the amounts in specified bank accounts and that it shall disburse such amounts once the victims or their successors sign the agreement. Based on the foregoing, upon the approval of the agreements, the Inter-American Court established 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.”7 Given that it was the State who proposed such method of payment in the agreements that were subjected to the Tribunal’s approval and that such method was accepted by the InterAmerican Court, it is necessary for Panama to clarify, in its next report, whether such guarantee certificates corresponds to the deposit of the checks in favor of these four victims, as well as of the signatory victim who has not withdrawn two checks (supra Considering clause 14) in separate accounts, upon the submission of the corresponding receipts according to the procedure proposed by the State and approved by means of Order of October 30, 2008. * * * 17. Moreover, as regards the brief attached by CEJIL to its observations without making any legal assessment or consideration (supra Considering clause 9 in fine), in which some persons represented by the organization challenged the approval of the agreements by this Court and, in general, the proceedings carried out by Panama, the Tribunal notes, as they have also indicated, that such persons have signed the agreements. Regarding those challenges and the statements made by the Organización de Trabajadores Víctimas, most of the victims of whom have signed the agreements, 7 See Case of Baena Ricardo et al V. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 30, 2008, Considering Clause 27.