body, without waiving its competence to decide on them or to determine the facts.258 To the contrary, this Court finds that no judicial review has occurred if the judicial body is prevented from determining the main object of the dispute, as in cases where the judicial body considers that it is restricted by factual or legal determinations made by the administrative body that would have been decisive to decide the case.259 205. In the instant case, it has been proved that it was possible to file an appeal for annulment before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal against the final decision of the Board of the Central Bank concerning a petition under article 31 of Law 17,613; that 39 alleged victims filed this appeal, and that all of them obtained an adverse ruling from this tribunal260 (supra paras. 101 and 103). 206. The Inter-American Commission argued, in general, that Uruguay had not provided the alleged victims with an effective remedy “to contest the Advisory Commission’s interpretation of article 31 of Law 17,613 before the Uruguayan courts,” and that the alleged victims “were unable to submit the central issue of the nature of the consent required to prove that their funds had been transferred offshore ‘without their consent’ to the courts for a ruling” (supra para 196). For their part, the representatives, referring specifically to the appeals for annulment filed by some alleged victims before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, argued that this tribunal “did not conduct an independent and impartial analysis of the requirements for evidence established in article 31 of Law 17,613, in particular those relating to the alleged absence of consent in relation to the transfer of [their] funds to the TCB,” and that, on this basis, all the appeals for annulment filed by the alleged victims were rejected. 207. In this regard, as has occurred in other case,261 the Court is unable to analyze the cases corresponding to these 39 alleged victims in the proceedings under administrative law due to the limited evidence provided in this regard. Only 22 judicial rulings deciding the appeals of 28 alleged victims were provided to the Court, but neither the appeals nor the judicial case files were provided.262 Therefore, the Court will 258 ECHR, Case of Sigma Radio Television Ltd. v. Cyprus, supra note 256, para. 156. See also, ECHR, Case of Zumtobel v. Austria. Judgment of 21 September 1993, Series No. 268-A, para. 32; case of Fischer v. Austria. Judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A No. 312, para. 34, and case of Bryan v. the United Kingdom. Judgment of 22 November 1995, Series No. 335-A, para. 47. 259 ECHR, Case of Sigma Radio Television Ltd. v. Cyprus, supra note 256, para. 157. See also, ECHR, Case of Obermeier v. Austria. Judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A No. 179, paras. 69-70 and case of Terra Woningen B.V. v. the Netherlands. Judgment of 17 December 1996, Rep. 1996-VI, fasc. 25, paras. 46, 50 to 55. 260 Since some of these judicial decisions do not indicate the names of all the plaintiffs and the corresponding complaints were not provided, this Court will also take into account the lists and tables of judicial proceedings provided by the State, which were not contested by the representatives or the Commission. 261 Cf. inter alia, Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra note 18, para. 134; Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra note 251, paras. 120 to 122; Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra note 15, paras. 250 and 251, and Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 112. 262 The 22 judgments of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal provided to the body of evidence are in the file of attachments to the answer, volumes III to VII, attachment 27 and are as follows: (1) Judgment No. 691 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of September 16, 2010, in proceedings entitled “Clemata José et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (folios 13865 to 13886), corresponding to the alleged victims: Barcarcel, Liliana; Cavajani, Nícida; Cavanna, José Luis; Da Silva Gaibisso, Hugo; Pizza, Martha; Tabárez Corni, Tabaré. (2) Judgment No. 713 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of October 25, 2006, in proceedings entitled “Azparren, Ana v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (folios 13907 to 13918), corresponding to the alleged victim Azparren, Ana Beatriz. (3) Judgment No. 659 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of October 4, 2006, in proceedings entitled “Alzaradel, Rita v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (folios 13965 to 13972), corresponding to the alleged victim Alzaradel, Rita. (4) Judgment No. 138 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of May 8, 2008, in proceedings entitled “Dendrinos, Daniel v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (folios 14368 to 14367), corresponding to the alleged victim Dendrinos Saquieres, Daniel. (5) Judgment No. 316 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 18, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Contín, Gianni et al. v. the 79