power, or that violate a rule of law, understood as any principle of law or constitutional, legislative, regulatory or contractual norm.”263 Based on the foregoing and other probative elements in the body of evidence, the Court observes that, using the appeal for annulment, the alleged victims could request a review of the way in which the administrative body had applied the requirements established in article 31 of Law 17,613, arguing that it was contrary to the provisions of the said article, or of any other legal norm or principle. The judgments submitted to this Court reveal that the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal did not waive its jurisdiction to decide any of the allegations and arguments presented in these cases. 209. The representatives argued that most of the alleged victims did not seek to have the administrative decisions annulled by the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, “because they did not consider it to be an effective remedy,” since its ruling could only annul the contested decision, but “would not have resulted automatically in the inclusion of the depositor among those protected,” which would have required another procedure before the Central Bank (supra para. 197). For its part, the State explained that “[b]ased on the characteristics of this matter, an annulment by the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal would entail full satisfaction of the petitioners’ interests, because it would not only extinguish the ruling that denied the claim (extinctive effect), but it would oblige the Central Bank of Uruguay (positive effect of the annulled res judicata) to recognize the person whose case was successful as a depositor of the Banco de Montevideo S.A. with the same rights as the other depositors.” 210. In this regard, it is relevant to emphasize that the European Court has considered that the remedy is effective if there has been adequate judicial review, even when the judicial body was not empowered to analyze all aspects of an administrative decision, but was competent to annul the said decision under different hypotheses, including an erroneous interpretation of the facts or the law.264 The Inter-American Court has also ruled on a case in which the available judicial remedy was an appeal for annulment, finding that it was appropriate to protect the rights that had allegedly been violated in the said case.265 211. Consequently, the Court finds that, in the instant case, the appeal for annulment could have been an effective remedy, to the extent that the annulment of the administrative decision would have protected the alleged victims from the decision that violated their rights. In the instant case, for the appeal for annulment to be effective, it would have had to result in both the annulment of the decision, and also the consequent determination or, if appropriate, recognition, of the rights established under article 31 of Law 17,613. The only case that was decided favorably by the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal was that of two people who are not alleged victims in the instant case and, although the judgment was provided, no information was forwarded on the consequences of the annulment of the administrative decision in relation to the recognition of the rights granted by article 31 of Law 17,613. 212. The Court does not have the necessary elements to analyze whether, the execution of a judgment deciding an appeal for annulment, specifically related to the application of article 31 of Law 17,613, would have been ineffective. This could have occurred if it merely annulled the administrative decision and failed to determine or recognize the rights established in the said article. 263 Decree Law 15,524, entitled “Regulatory framework. Administrative Tribunal” (file of attachments to the answer, volume I, attachment 15, folio 13011). 264 Cf. ECHR, Case of Sigma Radio Television Ltd. v. Cyprus, supra note 256, paras. 156-159. 265 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra note 15, para. 81. 81