10 manner under domestic rules, following the parameters outlined in the Judgment of the Court and according to the following. * * * 23. That, with regard to the decision not to sign the agreements, CEJIL informed of, among others, the following reasons: i) the agreement proposed by the State has not been settled through a conciliatory procedure, it is a State-sided proposal which prevents the victims from getting advise on its provisions from their legal counsels; ii) according to the agreement, the State sets a maximum 11-year term to pay out the unpaid salaries in disregard of the fact that many victims have not been reinstated in similar positions with state agencies; iii) income tax refund is subject to the signing of the agreement, “in disregard of the fact that it is a right of each victim, whether signatory or not;" iv) that the agreement fails to clearly determine the amounts due to the victims and entails a waiver to any past, present or future claim without providing specific and concrete information on the scope of such waiver. They also asserted that the State intends to make the agreement binding on non-signatory victims. 24. That the Organización de los Trabajadores Víctimas de la Ley 25 expressed similar reasons and pointed out that they deem it unacceptable that the State may take four years to pay out the reparations set out in the Judgment. They noted that “the agreement was drafted without the participation of the Inter-American Commission [...] or [their] organization,” so they do not acknowledge the agreements. Finally, they asserted that “no document lacking consent by the victims may be considered an agreement or, in particular, an obligation for them.” 25. That the Court notes that this group of victims or successors still have a dispute with the State as to the signing procedure and the contents of the agreements, in particular, as to the criteria used by the State to determine the amount of the reparations ordered by the Court. 26. That, with regard to the dispute on the legal criteria to be used and the amounts of the reparations, the Court deems it convenient to call attention to the Order of November 22, 2005, whereby it decided: […] That when the Court ruled on the measures of reparations in the case of Baena-Ricardo et al., it ordered that the State should ensure the enjoyment of rights of the 270 victims mentioned in paragraph 4 of the Judgment […] and that all of them should be entitled to redress for pecuniary damage […] Owing to the fact that these determinations entail the analysis of complex issues of Panamanian labor law applicable to each of the 270 victims, the Court deemed it more appropriate that these issues be addressed by domestic courts. In the Judgment of February 2, 2001, the Court ordered that Panama should determine the amount of unpaid salaries and further rights “according to its legislation” and “in accordance with the pertinent national procedures.” […] […] That, by virtue of the foregoing paragraph, the Court is not in a position to decide on the allegations of the victims and their representatives regarding the criteria and legislation that should be taken into account by Panama to comply with operative