9 16. That CEJIL stated that “most of the […] signatory victims are represented by our organization; therefore, we respect their will.” However, it pointed out that other victims represented by them were reluctant to sing the agreement (infra Considering Clause Number 23). 17. That the Inter-American Commission noted that in spite of the fact that the State failed to submit the requested information, Panama filed the agreements signed by a group of victims and that non-signatory victims expressed their reasons to the Court. The Commission stated that it is necessary to consider “the rights and expectations of the aggravated parties regarding compliance with the Judgment,” whether they have signed the agreement or not. Furthermore, it considered it arbitrary to link the rights of signatory victims to those of non-signatory victims, and that the criteria used to determine the amounts set out in the agreements should be known in order to analyze if they conform to the decision of the Court. It also stated that “the each victim’s will is key to determining whether the reparation agreed upon in the agreements filed before the Inter-American system is satisfied.” 18. That the agreements consisted of a proposal by the State to the victims in the instant case to fully comply with the obligations deriving from the Judgment, so those victims or successors agreeing to the proposal consented to and signed the same. 19. That the Court notes that a significant number of victims and successors, 202 out of 270 victims in the instant case, signed the aforementioned agreements. Later, five signatory victims informed the Court, through their representatives, of their intent to withdraw their consent for not agreeing to the terms of the agreements. 20. That, pursuant to the purpose of the State and most of the victims, this Court considers it encouraging that after almost seven years from the Judgment an agreement to solve all pending issues on reparations has been accorded and adopted between them and is now under the supervision of the Court. 21. That, under these circumstances, the role of the Court is to contribute to solve the dispute between the parties acting within its powers and abiding by Convention provisions. In the instant case, in view of the meeting of minds set out in the documents filed with the Court and the need that the Court delivers a decision rendering the agreements legally effective and that payments are effectively made (Considering Clause 15, paragraphs 4 and 9), the Court deems it convenient to approve the agreements signed between the State and a significant number of victims or successors. Therefore, the State should comply with the obligations under the agreements in due time and manner for the benefit of the victims or successors subscribing thereto. To this respect, the Court will keep the monitoring compliance with Judgment proceedings open in order to receive the receipts of payment to the signatory victims or successors. 22. That, concerning those persons who voluntarily decided not to sign the agreements, any pending dispute will be addressed and solved in a final and prompt