agreements that are being executed and made observations on the Order [of the] Court of June 28, 2012.” In this brief, a group of victims requested, among other matters, that an expert assessment “authorized by the Court in plenary” be ordered of the payments made to the victims and the other amounts and concepts allegedly due to them. The Court notes that the persons who signed the said brief are victims who signed the agreements endorsed by the Court on compliance with the Judgment. The Organización de Trabajadores Víctimas, almost all of those it represents also having signed the agreements, has also submitted numerous communications and briefs to the Court indicating its discontent, inconformity and dissatisfaction with the way in which the Judgment is being complied with, the amounts paid and, in general, has objected to the measures taken by Panama and the Court’s decisions in this regard. In addition, in its communications, the said representatives also requested an expert appraisal of the payments made and those allegedly due, as well as the establishment of a tripartite committee to assess compliance with the Judgment. 26. Regarding these concerns, the Court recalls what it has indicated in its previous Orders,10 and reiterates that the scope and content of the agreements with regard to the items paid appears in the instrument signed by the said persons and the criteria used by the State were presented in its report, which was forwarded to the legal representatives and the summary of which appears in the Order of October 30, 2008. In addition, the Court recalls that it will only keep the procedure of monitoring compliance with the Judgment open in order to receive: (a) the vouchers for the payment to the victims or heirs who signed the agreements, and (b) the vouchers of the bank deposits with regard to those persons who have not signed the agreements or who, having signed them, retracted.11 27. In addition, the Court finds it pertinent to recall that, in these international proceedings, the international monitoring procedure has terminated for those to whom the State has paid the amounts owed, without prejudice to the continuation of the claims that some of the victims of this case have filed under domestic law.12 28. With regard to the latter, the Court takes note of a domestic judgment handed down by the Third Contentious-Administrative and Labor Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and provided by the Organización de Trabajadores Víctimas, in which the Chamber decided not to admit a complaint filed by some of the victims in relation to compliance with the Judgment delivered by this Court. As indicated in the decision provided to this Court, the Supreme Court did not admit the said complaint because it considered that, “in this case, it is not viable to seek [the calculation of the award by an abstract appeal against the judgment of the Inter-American Court] through a contentious-administrative proceeding on compensation, because this should be achieved by a ‘request’ in the course of the proceedings in which the judgment that gave rise to the complaint was delivered and, in this specific case, there is no evidence that such proceedings were heard on Panamanian territory.” 29. The Court notes that it has no information on the specific purpose of the said legal action or on its possible implications or consequences for the eventual claims that the 10 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of July 1, 2009, sixteenth considering paragraph; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, seventeenth considering paragraph, and Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Order of the Court of February 22, 2011, twentieth considering paragraph. 11 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of October 30, 2008, fourth operative paragraph, and Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Order of the Court of February 22, 2011, third operative paragraph. 12 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Order of the Court of June 28, 2012, twenty-seventh considering paragraph. 6