11 paragraphs six and seven of the Judgment [...] However, the dispute on the rights, amounts and refunds deriving from operative paragraphs six and seven of the Judgment should be solved in the domestic system in accordance with the pertinent national procedures, which includes the possibility to resort to competent authorities, as is the case of domestic courts. In other words, if the victims or successors find that the calculations made by administrative authorities are unfair, they may resort to domestic competent courts. […].5 27. That, with regard to non-signatory victims or successors, or to those persons who withdrew their consent after signing the agreement, the Court deems it appropriate to note 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. 28. That, in keeping with the foregoing, non-signatory victims or successors or those persons who withdrew their consent after signing should be entitled to resort to competent courts to seek legal redress for the claims they deem relevant. 29. That the State should submit to the Inter-American Court the bank deposit receipts in non-signatory victims´ or successors´ name as well as in the name of those persons who withdrew their consent after signing. The State should consign said amounts under the most favorable financial conditions possible for those persons. To this respect, the Court shall keep the monitoring compliance with Judgment proceeding open in order to receive the bank deposit receipts. If after ten years the sums remain unclaimed and no judicial action has been instituted by any victim or successor, the sums will return to the State with any accrued interest as established in paragraph 212 of the Judgment. * * * 30. That, as regards any further allegations made by non-signatory victims or successors, or those persons who withdrew their consent after signing, as to the failure to reimburse the charges and other items provided for in operative paragraph seven of the Judgment, concerning default interest for moral damages under operative paragraph eight of the Judgment and income tax refund of previously paid reparations, the Court notes that the State proposal comprehends all the rights deriving from the Judgment. Therefore, the State should deposit the amounts due to non-signatory victims and successors or those persons who withdrew their consent after signing and, in accordance with the above provisions, the disputes should be solved in the domestic system (supra Considering Clause 26 and seq.). 5 Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2005, Considering clauses 13 and 14.