5 checks for the first two payments (supra Having Seen clause 4). Afterwards, (supra Having Seen clause 6), Panama clarified that: a) two victims withdrew their respective checks after the submission of the state report; b) in the case of another two deceased victims, the State is waiting for the domestic resolution declaring who the heirs are; c) the check in favor of one victim who recently passed away has not been drawn yet since the State is waiting for the declared heirs to appear, while “the money is deposited in a bank account opened to [such] end”, and d) “checks already issued are good for one year; upon expiration […] they shall be deposited as guarantee certificates at Banco Nacional de Panama [National Bank of Panama].” 9. CEJIL informed, “after having consulted with the victims by means of agreed procedures[,] that the State has made the bank deposits corresponding to the second payment in relation to the victims [it] represent”. Furthermore, “at the request of a group of Trabajadores Victimas”, it forwarded a note related to the Judgment. 10. The Organización de Trabajadores Víctimas did not present exactly its observations to the state report regarding the second payment made by Panama. However, in different briefs, it expressed its disagreements with the agreements and with their approval by the Tribunal. Among other statements, it pointed out that the State “has not complied with the terms established in the [J]udgment [in] operative paragraphs 6, 7 and the tax refund” and it further alleged that the claims made under the domestic legislation have been denied. 11. The Commission summarized several requests it received by some of the victims of the instant case and alleged that “it has received observations from various groups of victims who challenged the agreement- settlement submitted by the State.” Moreover, it stated that “given the court approval of the agreements, the State submitted a copy of the receipts of payment to the signatory victims or their successors and that, with regard to the non-signatory victims, the State has failed to make the deposit or inform about the possible approaches to reach an agreement with them.” 12. The Tribunal recalls that in the Order of July 1, 2009,6 the Court noted that 262 out of the 270 victims or their successors signed the agreements and that, in that respect, 255 victims have received their check for the first of the four annual payments. Therefore, Panama still needs to confirm whether the remaining seven persons have withdrawn their checks. In relation to this first payment, from the information and the documentation furnished by the parties, the Court notes that six of these persons have effectively received their checks and that one of them received a guarantee certificate issued by the State for failing to withdraw the corresponding check. Moreover, the State submitted a copy of the agreements signed by four persons who were not included in the Order of July 1, 2009, and who have also withdrawn the corresponding check. As a result, the Tribunal notes that 266 out of the 270 victims or their successors have signed the agreements and 265 victims have withdrawn the check corresponding to the first payment. 13. In relation to the second of the four payments that the State must make, from the documentation and information furnished by the parties, the Tribunal notes that 262 out of the 266 victims or successors who signed the agreement have received their checks. Furthermore, the Tribunal notes that: a) one of the persons who signed the agreement did not withdraw the check for neither of the two payments; therefore, 6 See Case of Baena Ricardo et al V. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2009, Considering Clause twelve.