18 57. The other victims who presented comments (supra paras. 30, 33, 44, 45 and 48) on the briefs of the State of February 27 and July 30, 2003, (supra paras. 26 and 41), stated briefly that: a) “The authority of the Inter-American Court to monitor compliance with the judgment of February 2, 2001, is stated in the tenth operative paragraph of the judgment and the State never contested it”21; b) Panama “has forgotten that the Order of November 22, 2002, originated from non-compliance with the judgment of February 2, 2001, and violations of due process”22; c) The State alleges that the Inter-American Court should consult it before issuing any opinion23; d) The State “tells the Inter-American Court of Human Rights what its functions and obligations are and in which situations it may not give an opinion; in other words, Panama knows more about the functions of the Court than the Court itself. Should what the State of Panama proposes be accepted as true, the inter-American juridical system would collapse and the peoples of the Americas would be defenseless with regard to their human rights”24; e) The State intends to create a unusual atmosphere of debate, which it not admissible at this stage of compliance with judgment25; f) Panama has questioned the competence of the Court as a mechanism to evade compliance with the judgment of February 2, 2001, and “confuse public opinion as regards this State obligation”26; g) The State “makes comments that make serious, reckless and unfounded accusations that reveal disregard or ignorance of the procedures of the Court to supervise full compliance with a judgment”27; 21 Cf. Brief with comments on the State’s report of July 30, 2003, submitted by Domingo De Gracia Cedeño, José Santamaría Saucedo and Fernando Del Río Gaona on October 28, 2003, (supra para. 44); and brief with comments on the State’s brief of February 27, 2003, submitted by José Santamaría Saucedo and Domingo De Gracia Cedeño on April 7, 2003, (supra para. 33). 22 Brief with comments on the State’s brief of February 27, 2003, submitted by Fernando Del Río Gaona and Domingo De Gracia Cedeño on April 7, 2003, (supra para. 33). 23 Cf. Brief with comments on the State’s brief of February 27, 2003, submitted by Fernando Del Río Gaona and Domingo De Gracia Cedeño on April 7, 2003, (supra para. 33). 24 Brief with additional comments on the State’s report of July 30, 2003, submitted by Fernando Del Río Gaona and José Santamaría Saucedo on October 30, 2003, (supra para. 45). 25 Cf. Attachment to the brief with comments on the State’s brief of February 27, 2003, submitted by Manrique Mejía, Ivanor Alonso, Juan O. Sanjur, Fernando Dimas, Miguel Prado, Andrés Guerrero, Rafael Tait Yepes, Estebana Nash and Marina Villalobos on April 4, 2003, (supra para. 30). 26 Cf. Brief with comments on the State’s brief of February 27, 2003, forwarded by Juan O. Sanjur by e-mail on November 12, 2003, (supra para. 48); and attachment to the brief with comments on the State’s brief of February 27, 2003, submitted by Manrique Mejía, Ivanor Alonso, Juan O. Sanjur, Fernando Dimas, Miguel Prado, Andrés Guerrero, Rafael Tait Yepes, Estebana Nash and Marina Villalobos on April 4, 2003, (supra para. 30). 27 Brief with comments on the State’s brief of February 27, 2003, submitted by Fernando Del Río Gaona and Domingo De Gracia Cedeño el April 7, 2003, (supra para. 33).