9 39. On July 11, 2003, the State forwarded a brief in which it indicated that “it [would] soon make the pending payment to the remaining 75 workers in the case” and that “it [would] then present an updated progress report on implementation of the [...] judgment, by July 30, 2003, at the latest.” 40. On June 20 and July 21 and 24, 2003, Xiomara Lasco de Cárdenas, Juan O. Sanjur and Domingo De Gracia Cedeño, respectively, sent e-mails, with attachments, concerning compliance with the judgment delivered by the Court on February 2, 2001. 41. On July 30, 2003, the State forwarded a brief with “[c]omments [...] on the Order of June 6, 2003, […] and information on the process of implementing the judgment of February 2, 200[1]”, delivered by the Court in the instant case. In this brief, Panama, inter alia, reiterated (supra para. 26 and infra para. 54) that it considered that, in the Orders of November 22, 2002, and June 6, 2003, the Court “ha[d] interpreted its own judgment,’ and that the stage of monitoring compliance with judgment was ‘a post-judgment stage’ [,...] that did not fall within the judicial sphere of the Court, but strictly within the political sphere.” Panama also referred to compliance with the measures of reparation. The State attached to this brief a document entitled “Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas, Dirección de Administración y Finanzas, Departamento de Tesorería Institucional, Sentencia de 2 de febrero de 2001, Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Informe de Ingresos y Egresos, 22 de julio de 2003” [Ministry of Economy and Finance, Administration and Finance Division, Institutional Treasury Department, Judgment of February 2, 2001, InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, Report on Income and Expenditure, July 22, 2003], which contained 15 pages of attachments. On August 1, 2003, the State forwarded another copy of this document, but with 74 pages of attachments. 42. On August 4, 2003, on the instructions of the President and as stipulated in the third operative paragraph of the Order of June 6, 2003 (supra para. 37), the Secretariat granted a non-extendible period of three months for the victims or their legal representatives and the Inter-American Commission to submit their comments on the State’s brief of July 30, 2003, (supra para. 41). 43. On September 3, 2003, Estebana Nash and Ivanor Alonso forwarded a brief and several attachments concerning compliance with the judgment in the instant case. 44. On October 28, 2003, Domingo De Gracia Cedeño, José Santamaría Saucedo and Fernando Del Río Gaona presented a brief in which they referred to compliance with judgment and submitted their comments on the State’s report of July 30, 2003 (supra para. 41 and infra para. 57). 45. On October 30, 2003, Fernando Del Río Gaona and José Santamaría Saucedo presented additional comments on Panama’s report of July 30, 2003 (supra paras. 41 and 44, and infra para. 57). 46. On November 12, 2003, Miguel González forwarded an de amicus curiae brief concerning Panama’s report of July 30, 2003 (supra para. 41). 47. On November 12, 2003, Alfredo Berrocal A. Sent an e-mail in which he referred to compliance with the judgment of February 2, 2001. The same day, he forwarded the attachments to this communication by facsimile.