group of alleged victims who were in the same situation.243 In this regard, the Court emphasizes that it is not incumbent upon it to search through the available body of evidence to determine whether there has been a violation of the rights of other alleged victims, who were not expressly identified by the party alleging the violation. 181. When submitting its answering brief, the State indicated that, “for the specific analysis of each file decided favorably (and its comparison with some decided unfavorably), it referred to the complete and clear brief that […] the members of the Advisory Commission submitted to the 19th Criminal Judge of First Instance” in the criminal proceedings filed against the members of the said Commission (supra para. 99). Uruguay maintained that this document “reveals clearly that, in none of the cases decided unfavorably that are specifically described by the Inter-American Commission (numbers 52 (ii) to (v) of its application), was any suitable evidence provided to contest the consent derived from the express instructions, or the presumption of consent arising from the ‘general conditions’ or from the reception of the bank statements.” 182. The Court finds that, according to the probative elements provided, the representatives’ arguments concerning the cases of Oscar Pivovar244 and Alba Fernández have not been proved. Regarding Oscar Pivovar, the representatives argued that the “[requested testimonial] evidence was never received” “from the Banco de Montevideo Branch Manager.” Regarding this alleged victim the Court was only provided with the decision issued by the Board of the Central Bank that decided his initial claim, which does not reveal that he had offered any testimonial evidence that was rejected. The only comment made in relation to the opportunity granted the petitioner to see the draft decision was that “the arguments made […] when reviewing the draft decision do not add new elements that would change the decision.” With regard to Alba Fernández, the representatives indicated that “her signature was forged to attest her renewal, [and that she] reported the fact to the [Advisory Commission], but it was never investigated.” Similarly, regarding the procedure before the administrative body in the case of Mrs. Fernández, the Court was only provided with the decision deciding the initial claim, from which there is no evidence of the representatives’ allegation. The decision only reveals that Alba Fernández did not make any observations when she was allowed to see the Advisory Commission’s unfavorable draft decision. 183. Regarding the administrative procedure to determine the rights of the alleged victim Alicia Barbani Duarte, the representatives argued that what happened in her case is an “example” of the “alleged victims whose claim was rejected in the procedure before the Advisory Commission, even though they had offered evidence of not renewing or that their savings were subject to early buyback.” A copy of Mrs. Barbani’s Central Bank file was provided and, from this, the Court has verified that a statement by a Banco de Montevideo account manager reveals that Mrs. Barbani went to the bank “between the end of May and the intervention of the Banco de Montevideo” to request the withdrawal of her funds from the said bank, but the said official told her that she would have to wait until the date of maturity on June 27, 2002. According to the administrative decisions in relation to Mrs. Barbani’s case, as well as from the brief submitted by the members of 243 As helpful evidence (supra para. 10), the President asked the parties to indicate whether there were alleged victims whose petition was rejected in the administrative procedures or in the proceedings under administrative law, despite having offered evidence of their alleged instruction that their shares in certificates of deposit should not be renewed. In their brief with final arguments, the representatives referred to the cases of “Mr. Pivovar,” “Mr. Marenales” and “the depositor Alba Fernández” as cases in which there had been unequal treatment in relation to the cases accepted. Furthermore, in response to the President’s said request, they indicated that they “kn[ew] that there were alleged victims whose petition was rejected in the procedures before the Advisory Commission, despite having provided evidence of not renewing or that their savings should be returned before maturity, as, for example, the cases of Alicia Barbani and Jorge Marenales.” 244 In their final written arguments, the representatives referred to the case of “Mr. Pivovar,” without indicating the complete name of the alleged victim to whom they were referring. During the public hearing before the Court, the representatives identified him as Oscar Pivovar. 72