followed a pattern of rejecting a claim initially and then “admitting it owing to the testimony, generally unconfirmed, of a Banco de Montevideo employee.” In this regard, the Inter-American Commission submitted a series of arguments related to the alleged absence of probative value of the statements received at the domestic level, the quantum of the evidence to prove a fact or a requirement, and the assessment of the evidence by the administrative body. In this regard, the Inter-American Commission argued that, the actions of the administrative body in relation to the admission and assessment of evidence constituted non-compliance with the Central Bank’s Rules of Administrative Procedure or that the Advisory Commission “ignored” the provisions of article 161(2) of the General Code of Procedure. The Commission argued that, in the procedure before the Central Bank, the alleged victims “were not advised or notified that the Advisory Commission would interpret the testimony of witnesses in their favor” to prove that “they had sought to withdraw their money.” 187. For their part, the representatives added that the evidence that the petitioners before the Central Bank had to submit to prove the absence of consent in the transfer of their funds to offshore accounts, “should have been reasonable and objective, and should not have constituted an obstacle for the transparent implementation of the procedure established for the recovery of their assets.” According to the representatives, “the Advisory Commission did not even ensure that these probative elements, created as the procedure was underway and unknown to most of the interested parties, were publicized among them, so the new possibility of introducing witnesses was not accessible to most of them.” 188. The State indicated that each petitioner had several opportunities, under both the administrative and the jurisdictional systems, to have his arguments heard and to offer any legal means of evidence to prove that the requirements established by article 31 of Law 17,613 had been met, in order to be granted the same rights as those established for the depositors of the Banco de Montevideo. It added that, if these opportunities were not used, this cannot be attributed to the State, but only to the interested party himself. It indicated that, in its actions, the Advisory Commission “conformed strictly to the law, in both the procedure used and the basic requirements for the claim to be decided […] using the general principles of the administrative procedure.” It affirmed that the Advisory Commission acted with technical independence, “promptness and efficacy in attending [approximately] 1,400 claims, which were investigated and decided within a year […] without, in any case, rejecting any means of evidence offered by [the alleged victims],” and investigating and processing all the evidence received in each claim. Considerations of the Court 189. The Court has verified that, in the special procedure created under article 31 of Law 17,613, the administrative body applied the norms in force to deal with claims before the Central Bank del Uruguay. The resolution of the Board of the Central Bank which, in compliance with the said article 31, created the Advisory Commission, expressly establishes that “[i]n the substantiation of the claims [before the Advisory Commission], the general principles of administrative proceedings included in the Rules of Administrative Procedure of the Central Bank of Uruguay shall be observed,” and that “[t]he evidence will be assessed in accordance with the rules contained in the General Code of Procedure.” 190. Indeed, as the State argues, according to the said norms that governed the procedure, the petitioners had at least three opportunities to offer evidence: when filing their claim, when they were permitted to examine the unfavorable draft decision prepared by the Advisory Commission, and if they filed an appeal for annulment of the initial decision (supra paras. 84 to 89). They could offer any type of evidence, and this was admitted unless it was found to be inadmissible because it was irrelevant, 75