the Central Bank.228 In this regard, the Court takes notes of the State’s argument that the said representations were not specified or even accredited, and also that “administrative petitions are personal,” so that if the petition before the Central Bank was not filed in the name of all the holders of an account, only those alleged victims who personally filed petitions under article 31 of Law 17,613 should be considered as such. Based on the purpose of the instant case, as well as the reasons why the Court declared a violation of the material sphere of the right to be heard, the Court notes that it has only considered as victims in this case those persons who filed petitions before the Central Bank under article 31 of Law 17,613, either in person or through a representative, proof of which must exist in the respective file of the Central Bank.229 147. Regarding the said 179 alleged victims, the Court concludes that it will not consider them victims in this case, because no evidence was provided to the case file proving their participation in the procedure of which they allege they are victims, bearing in mind the reasons why the Court concluded that there had been a violation of the right to be heard included in Article 8(1) of the American Convention (supra paras. 133 to 142). This conclusion does not exclude the future possibility of the State, in good faith, ordering and adopting measures of reparation in favor of these people. 228 The following alleged victims are in this situation: (1) Aida Irigoyen, who is acting in representation of her husband Rogelio Torres Ramos, who was a petitioner before the Central Bank under the said article 31 and is a victim in this case; (2) Daniel Figueredo, who is acting in representation of Javier Taño, petitioner before the Central Bank, but who was not indicated as an alleged victim by the Inter-American Commission; (3) Carlos Broglia, whose wife and alleged heir, Adriana Vera, was the one who filed a petition before the Central Bank, but who was not indicated as an alleged victim by the Inter-American Commission; (4) Claudia Moreira Panella, who allegedly is the heir of Cristina Matilde Panella Castro, who was a petitioner before the Central Bank and is a victim in this case; (5) Isaac Krivianski, who is a joint holder of an account with the petitioner before the Central Bank Carolina Krivianski, but who was not indicated as an alleged victim by the InterAmerican Commission; (6) Natalia Krivianski, who is also a joint holder of the account with Carolina Krivianski; (7) Beatriz Sienra, who is joint holder of the account of Leandro Rama, who filed a petition under the said article 31 and is a victim in this case; (8) Lorena Dotta, who is joint holder of the account of Martín García, who filed a petition under the said article 31 and is a victim in this case; (9) Miguel Sartori, who is the husband of Alejandra Oliveri, who filed a petition under the said article 31, but was not indicated as an alleged victim by the Inter-American Commission, and (10) Eva Feibelmann de Vasen, who is joint holder of the account of Mara Vasen Feibelmann, who filed a petition before the Central Bank and is a victim in this case. In addition to the cases of alleged victims expressly indicated by the parties, the Court has verified that the following alleged victims are in the same situation: (1) Adela Abu Arab Maisonnave, who is joint holder of the account of Milka Maisonnave, who filed a petition before the Central Bank and is a victim in this case; (2) Juan Amengual, who is joint holder of the account of Rosa Reboa, who filed a petition before the Central Bank and is a victim in this case; (3) Antonio Farcic, who acted in the file before the Central Bank “in representation of Alejandro Farcic”, who is the petitioner who appears in the respective decision of the Central Bank, but who was not indicated as an alleged victim by the Inter-American Commission; (4) Adelaide Cancro, who is joint holder of the account of Miguel Cancro, who filed a petition before the Central Bank under the article 31 and is a victim in this case; (5) Josefa García Pardo, who is joint holder of the account of Susana Rodríguez and Vicente Langone, who were petitioners before the Central Bank under the said article 31 and are victims in this case; (6) Raúl Unanua, who is joint holder of the account of Alejandra Unanua, who filed a petition under the said article 31 and is a victim in this case; (7) Reguitti, Telma, who is joint holder of the account of Bara Walter, who filed a petition under the said article 31 and is a victim in this case; (8) Ricardo Valiño, who is allegedly the heir of Jorge Valiño, who was a petitioner before the Central Bank and is a victim in this case, and (9) Rafael Cohen Abut, who is joint holder of the account of Alejandro Abut, petitioner before the Central Bank and a victim in this case. 229 The foregoing is without prejudice to the determination made under domestic law in relation to the distribution of the share among the joint holders of the same account. In this regard, Opinion No. 04/1056 of the Notarial Legal Advice Office of December 23, 2004, issued in the case of petitioners Rafael Outeiro Silvera and Jorge Peláez Pla (File No. 2003/1339) establishes that “the fact that that the decision of the Board refers to only one of these persons (Mr. Outeiro) does not preclude concluding that the said administrative act is effective over all the funds deposited (as is clear from these proceedings, […]. Regarding the right to the respective share, the same (and correct) criterion should be followed as in the case of any of the depositors of the Banco de Montevideo S.A., who become shareholders of the Banco de Montevideo - Bank Assets Recovery Fund: the rights to the share will correspond to the persons whose name is on the bank account that gave rise to the share (and with the same characteristics, administered by either person or jointly).” Opinion No. 04/1056 of December 23, 2004, of the Notarial Legal Advice Office of the Central Bank (file of attachments to the application, volume VIII, attachment 12 (D), folio 6735). 61