of analyzing the petitions and advising the Board of the Central Bank, the Advisory Commission acted under the assumption that the analysis of defects of consent was an exclusive function of the courts. For example, this witness indicated that the said Advisory Commission “could not consider a declaration of private intention based on a deception that could possibly invalidate the consent.” 135. Regarding the sphere of material protection sought by the said article 31, the Court takes into account the transcripts of the parliamentary discussions provided by the State.217 In this regard, it is evident that, when the wording “without their consent” was adopted in the said norm, it was considered that the inclusion of the concept of consent was the most appropriate to examine the situation of those they were seeking to protect,218 because “consent is a legal concept regulated by the Civil Code.”219 At the time, it was considered that, when the norm was applied, the provisions of the Civil Code regulating the invalidity of consent could be taken into account, “when [consent] has been given in error, under duress or as a result of intentional deception.”220 In addition, during the parliamentary discussion of bill 17,613, repeated reference was made to the fact that this law should protect the depositors who had been “deceived.”221 136. Based on the above, this Court finds that, in order to ensure that the petitioners’ claims were heard using this special procedure, it was necessary that the body responsible for deciding the petitions could analyze the consent fully, because the absence of consent was a decisive requirement to accede to the rights established in article 31 of Law 17,613. This analysis included the assessment of all the petitioners’ arguments that related to their consent being impaired, such as the defects that could invalidate it and the lack of truthful and complete information from the Banco de Montevideo and the Banco La Caja Obrera. That analysis should have taken into account not only those elements upon which consent could be based, such as a contract or specific instructions that permitted the transfers, but also those that could invalidate or impair it, such as the alleged defects of consent. 137. The Court considers that, if a complete analysis of consent had been made when deciding the petitions presented under article 31 of Law No. 17,613, the result of the decisions that rejected the petitions might have been different. 217 When the State was advised that the documentary evidence regarding the parliamentary discussions was incomplete, in response Uruguay clarified that “[t]he parts of the daily records of the session that have been attached are those that refer, relevantly, to the parliamentary discussion of article 31 of Law 17,613. Hence, we have refrained from attaching the rest of the parliamentary discussions.” The State’s response to the analysis of the attachments to the answering brief sent to it by the Court’s Secretariat (merits file, volume II, folio 747). 218 This wording was approved unanimously by the committee responsible for drafting the bill and remained unchanged until the final approval of Law 17,613. Cf. Typed version of the session of December 20, 2002, of the Senate’s Finance Committee established by the Constitution and legislation (file of attachments to the answer, volume II, attachment 20, folio 13216). 219 Intervention of Senator Millor in the session of December 20, 2002, of the Senate’s Finance Committee established by the Constitution and legislation (file of attachments to the answer, volume II, attachment 20, folio 13215). 220 Senator Millor stated that he “believe[d] that, of these three hypotheses, the one that met the actual situation [of the persons who article 31 was supposed to protect] is the third; in other words that there are individuals who could have been duped by [civil] fraud.” Cf. Intervention of Senator Millor in the session of December 20, 2002, of the Senate’s Finance Committee established by the Constitution and legislation (file of attachments to the answer, volume II, attachment 20, folio 13215). 221 Cf. Intervention of Senator Millor in the session of December 20, 2002, of the Senate’s Finance Committee established by the Constitution and legislation (file of attachments to the answer, volume II, attachment 20, folio 13216); Intervention of Senator Gallinal in the 75th special session of the Senate held on December 20 and 21, 2002 (file of attachments to the answer, volume II, attachment 20, folio 13232), a Intervention of Representative Amorín Batlle in the session of December 26, 2002, of the Chamber of Representatives (file of attachments to the answer, volume II, attachment 20, folio 13222). 56