provide information, in the report on the fourth payment, as to whether the heirs of the two deceased victims had been able to receive the third disbursement.6 23. In the reports submitted after that Order, the State did not mention the third payment made to the heirs of these two persons. The representatives and the Commission did not refer specifically to these two cases, though CEJIL reported that all of its clients, which included these two persons, had received the payments. 24. The Inter-American Court has received no proof of payment or any explanation from the State of Panama regarding the third payment to the heirs of those victims. Consequently, the Court orders the State to include, in its next report, the explanations and, if applicable, the proof of the third payment made to the heirs of said victims. d) Other aspects related to compliance with the Judgment 25. With regard to the brief attached by CEJIL to its observations, without making any legal assessment or consideration (supra Considering para. 9), in which a group of victims or heirs represented by that organization questioned the Court’s approval of the agreements and, in general, the measures taken by Panama, the Court notes that these persons have signed the agreements. With regard to the questions raised and the statements made by the Organización de Trabajadores Víctimas, most of whose clients also signed the agreements, the Court deems it appropriate to recall the points made in its previous Orders7, and to reiterate that the scope and content of the agreements as regards the items paid for is set forth in the agreement signed by these persons, and that the criteria used by the State were presented in its report, which was transmitted to the legal representatives, and which is summarized in the Order of October 30, 2008. 26. Furthermore, the Court recalls that it will keep open the procedure to monitor compliance with the Judgment in order to receive: a) the receipts of payment to the victims or heirs who signed the agreements and b) the receipts of the bank deposits to those persons who did not sign the agreements or who withdrew their consent after signing them. 8 27. In this respect, the Court considers that the conclusion of the international monitoring procedure regarding the persons to whom the State has paid the amounts owed has effects on this international proceeding, without detriment to the fact that, under domestic law, some of the victims in this case may, in future, continue with the claims that they have already filed. 6 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 22, 2011 Considering para. 14 and 15. 7 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2009, Considering para. 16; Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, Considering para.17, and Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama, supra note 6, Considering para. 20. 8 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 30, 2008, Operative Paragraph 4, and Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama, supra note 6, Operative Paragraph 3. 6