manager recorded that Jorge Marenales had given instructions not to renew his share in a deposit certificate that matured on June 20, 2002. In the above-mentioned brief presented by the members of the Advisory Commission in the criminal proceedings filed against them (supra para. 181), when referring to the case of Mr. Marenales, they indicated that, even though he had given instructions that, on the date maturity of his share, his funds be left “on demand”; in other words that they should be placed in the respective account, “[t]his could not be done because, precisely on June 20, 2002, the Central Bank instructed the Banco de Montevideo not to pay the TCB CD.” Based on these elements, it is evident that the determinant factor in the rejection of this case was that the date of maturity of the share in the certificate was June 20, 2002, which this Court finds entails an arbitrary and discriminatory treatment with regard to at least one of the 22 cases admitted.249 The representatives highlighted that one of the cases admitted contradicts the decision in the case of Mr. Marenales, because that case was accepted, because the claim was admitted under article 31 of Law 17,613, even though the placement also matured on June 20, 2002. The review of the file of the said petitioner who was accepted reveals that, in that case, the claim was admitted in relation to a share in certificates of deposit that matured on June 20, 2002, because consent had not been given for renewal. The Court finds no rational and objective reason that would justify the difference in treatment of the two cases in application of the same norm. It therefore concludes that, in the case of Mr. Marenales, adequate reasoning was not guaranteed that would allow verification that the criteria used to determine the requirement of absence of consent was applied objectively, which constitutes a violation of Articles 1(1) and 8(1) of the American Convention. 185. Therefore, regarding the alleged discriminatory treatment owing to the application of a new criterion in the 22 cases that were accepted, the Court concludes that the Central Bank’s conduct did not constitute arbitrary and discriminatory treatment, because its acceptance was based on the analysis of the requirements established in article 31 of Law 17,613 and not on the application of a new criterion that only benefited some petitioners. Consequently, the State did not violate Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. Regarding the alleged arbitrary or discriminatory treatment received by four alleged victims identified by the representatives, the Court concludes that it does not have sufficient evidence to determine the existence of this arbitrary or discriminatory treatment with regard to Oscar Pivovar and Alba Fernández. However, the Court concludes that the victims Jorge Marenales and Alicia Barbani Duarte did suffer arbitrary and discriminatory treatment, because the State did not guarantee an adequate reasoning of the decisions of the Central Bank that decided their claims under article 31 of Law 17,613 that would allow verification of the objective application of the criteria used to determine the requirement of absence of consent, and this constitutes a violation the right to non-discriminatory treatment, in relation to the procedural guarantee of adequate reasoning, protected by Articles 1(1) and 8(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of Alicia Barbani Duarte and Jorge Marenales. B.2.d) Alleged lack of information concerning evidence Arguments of the parties 186. The Inter-American Commission argued that there had been a “selective inclusion of witnesses” when examining the cases that were admitted. The Advisory Commission 249 The Central Bank’s decision that decided the said petition, expressly affirmed that the testimony received and the documents in the file “reveal express instruction not to renew in TCB [… so that i]n the case of the document […] that matured on June 20, 2002, it should be understood that no consent was given to renew it.” Consequently, in this case the petitioners were granted the rights recognized in article 31 of Law 17,613. Cf. Case of María Julia Boeri Bottero and María del Rosario Delmonte Boeri (File No. 2003/0708) (file of attachments to the application, volumes V and XIII, attachments 12 (C) and 12 (G), folios 4982 to 5070 and folios 9561 to 9640). 74