the Advisory Commission under the criminal proceedings filed against them (supra para. 181), the determinant factor in the rejection of her claim was the fact that she had expressed her wish to withdraw her money and not to renew her certificate before it matured and that the date of maturity occurred after the intervention of the Banco de Montevideo.245 The Court has verified that, in two cases that were accepted, there was a similar situation as regards the request to withdraw funds and the date of maturity.246 In addition, in those two cases the petitioners proved that the financial product (Trade & Commerce Bank certificates of deposit) had been offered to them on condition that they could withdraw their funds before the date of maturity.247 In the case of Mrs. Barbani Duarte, this Court verified that, in her Central Bank file,248 there is evidence that the financial product (Trade & Commerce Bank certificates of deposit) also came with the condition that “it could be withdrawn at any time,” and that when Mrs. Barbani Duarte went to withdraw her money “the Bank unilaterally refused” “on the Manager’s instructions.” The Court does not find any rational and objective reason to justify the difference in treatment between the case of Alicia Barbani Duarte and the other two cases mentioned above that were accepted, in application of the same norm. Hence, it concludes that, in the case of Mrs. Barbani Duarte, adequate reasoning was not guaranteed that would allow verification that the criteria to determine the constitution of the requirement of absence of consent were applied objectively, and this constitutes a violation of Articles 1(1) and 8(1) of the American Convention. 184. Regarding the alleged victim Jorge Marenales, the representatives indicated that “he gave instructions to leave his deposit on-demand when it matured, in other words, not to renew it, but he was not accepted.” A copy of this alleged victim’s Central Bank file was provided, from which it has been verified that the testimony of an account 245 In particular, it is relevant to underscore that in the last decision of the Board of the Central Bank issued on December 28, 2005, which decided the petition filed by Mrs. Barbani, it was considered that “the request to withdraw the funds testified to by Mr. Fontana [account officer] occurred after having renewed the placement in TCB – with the consent of the joint holders of the account – on May 27, 2002, in an investment whose agreed maturity was after the date of which the Banco de Montevideo S.A. was intervened and on which TCB Cayman Island ceased to honor its obligations, which places the petitioner outside the possibility of being considered under the protection of the said legal provision.” Decision of the Board of the Central Bank of Uruguay D/772/2005 of December 28, 2005, issued in file No. 2003/0624 concerning Alicia Barbani (file of attachments to the application, volume II, attachment 12 (A), folio 3009). Also, the brief presented by the members of the Advisory Commission in the criminal proceedings filed against them, established expressly that “Notary Barbani requested the withdrawal of the money, but on a later date than May 27, 2002; in other words, when the certificate of deposit had already been renewed. In order to withdraw the money, it was necessary to wait until the next date of maturity which was on June 27, 2002. As the intervention occurred on June 21, Notary Barbani could not withdraw the money. This is the crucial element that permits differentiating this situation from others that received a positive ruling.” Brief with answers of the members of the Advisory Commission ante the 19th Criminal Judge of First Instance (file of attachments to the answer, volume II, attachment 21, folio 13308). 246 Cf. Clara Jasinski (File No. 2003/0637) (file of attachments to the application, volume III, attachment 12 (B), folios 3450 to 3490), and Raúl Montero (File No. 2003/0469) (file of attachments to the application, volume XVI, attachment 12 (J), folios 11783 to 11786). 247 In the said cases, the Central Bank considered that the refusal of the Banco de Montevideo to hand over their funds before maturity to these petitioners constituted a unilateral change on the part of the Bank, which signified that the placement had been maintained without the petitioners’ consent (supra para. 96). 248 Cf. Testimony given on May 25, 2004, before a member of the Advisory Commission by Jorge Olivar Fontana, account officer of the Banco de Montevideo (file of attachments to the application, volume II, attachment 12(A), folios 2905, 2920 and 2921). The second question that Mr. Fontana was asked was “When did you begin to manage Alicia Barbani’s account and, when you began to manage it, what form did her deposit take,” to which the witness responded: “I don’t remember the exact date, but it was in the months just prior to the intervention. It was a deposit in TCB.” In the cross-examination by Dr. Víctor Della Valle, the questions were: “1. Did you tell Mrs. Barbani that the fixed-term deposit she had made could be withdrawn at any time, even before maturity? Answer: Yes, that is correct, because that was one of the advantages of this product.” “2. When she wanted to withdraw it, did the Bank unilaterally refuse this? Answer: Yes, on the Management’s instructions.” Then, the member of the Advisory Commission asked the following question: “Do you recall on what date it refused to allow Mrs. Barbani to withdraw the money referred to in the previous question?. Answer: It must have been some time between the end of May and the intervention of the Banco de Montevideo.” 73