6 10. That the Organización de Trabajadores Víctimas de la Ley 25 failed to submit its observations to the State’s report. However, in various other submissions prior to the report, they voiced their dissatisfaction with the agreements and with the Court’s approval of them. Additionally, they requested that the Court order the State to provide the organization with detailed information about the parameters, formulas and legislation used in calculating the individual amounts for each non-signatory victim. Furthermore, they stated to the Court that they required the Ministry of Labor to provide information on the legislation used to calculate the amount to be paid to the workers who had not signed the agreements, and that they commenced proceedings before the domestic courts, including the application to the Supreme Court of Justice of Panama for a writ of habeas data on December 31, 2008, in view of the Ministry of Labor’s failure to address said request for information. 11. That the Inter-American Commission pointed out that “it has received observations from various groups of victims who challenged the agreement-settlement submitted by the State”. However, it stated that “given the court approval of the agreements, the State submitted a copy of the receipts of payment to the victims or their signatory successors and that, with regard to the non-signatory victims, [Panama] has failed to make the deposit or inform about the possible talks to reach an agreement with them. Thus, with respect to the matter subject to supervision by the Court —that is, only the submission of payment receipts—[the Commission] has no further observations”. * * * 12. Pursuant to the information and documents submitted by the parties, the Tribunal notes that 262 out of the 270 victims or their successors signed the agreements. Two of them have failed to withdraw their checks (supra Considering clause No. 8) and, as regards other five, it must be confirmed whether they have withdrawn their check without any hassles (supra Considering clause No. 9). Based on the foregoing, the Inter-American Court concludes that 255 victims have received their check for the first of the four annual payments that the State must make, although final conclusions are still due regarding the seven people mentioned above. 13. Based on CEJIL’s observations on five of those seven cases (supra Considering clause No. 9), the Court notes that those people are represented by CEJIL, so it must be required to submit the information regarding what happened with the withdrawal of those checks. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court deems it convenient that Panama in its next report makes reference to this situation and confirms whether the persons mentioned in CEJIL’s submission did receive the check for the first annual disbursement. Additionally, the State shall submit updated information about the two persons who signed the agreement but have not yet withdrawn their checks. * * *