7 victims or their successors, and indicate all the progress made in compliance with the reparations ordered by this Court. 11. That the victims or their legal representatives and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights must submit their comments on the State’s report within three months of receiving it. 12. That it w[ould] continue monitoring full compliance with the judgment of February 2, 2001, and close the case, only when it had been complied with fully. 22. On December 19, 2002 CEJIL, the legal representative of most of the victims, forwarded a copy of a brief addressed to the Executive Secretary of the InterAmerican Commission, and its attachment, concerning the reimbursement of costs and expenses. 23. On February 24, 2003, the Inter-American Commission forwarded a copy of a brief addressed to Rolando Gómez C. and to CEJIL, concerning compliance with the ninth operative paragraph of the judgment delivered by this Court on February 2, 2001 (supra para. 3). 24. On February 25, 2003, the Inter-American Commission forwarded a brief, in which it advised that it had received from Panama the amounts ordered by the Court for reimbursement of expenses and costs in the judgment of February 2, 2001, which had been distributed between the victims and their legal representatives. Consequently, the Commission requested the Court to “determine that the ninth operative paragraph of its judgment of February 2, 2001, and the stage relating to the payment of costs and expenses had been complied with.” 25. On February 27, 2003, the Secretariat granted until March 28, 2003, for the victims or their legal representatives and the State to submit any comments they deemed pertinent on the said brief of the Commission (supra para. 24). 26. On February 27, 2003, the State presented a brief in which it referred to compliance with judgment and to the decisions of the Court in the Order of November 22, 2002, on compliance with judgment (supra para. 21). In this brief, the State referred, inter alia, to: the determination of the unpaid wages and other labor rights, the payment of interest accrued owing to the delay in paying the compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the tax on the compensation payments, and compliance with the seventh operative paragraph of the judgment of February 2, 2001. It also stated that the stage of monitoring compliance with judgment is a “post-judgment” stage that “is not included in the norms that regulate the jurisdiction and the procedure of the Court,” and that in the Order of November 22, 2002, the Court interpreted its own judgment of February 2, 2001. 27. On March 4, 2003, the Secretariat advised that this brief of the State had been submitted to the consideration of the Court and granted the Inter-American Commission and the victims or their legal representatives until April 7, 2003, to submit any comments they deemed pertinent. 28. On March 26, 2003, the Panamanian Ombudsman presented an amicus curiae brief concerning compliance with the judgment delivered by the Court on February 2, 2001. 29. On April 4, 2003, CEJIL submitted its comments on the State’s brief of February 27, 2003, (supra para. 26 and infra para. 56).